WI0700035_Application_19990730

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND/OR USE A WELL(S) FOR
INJECTION
Class 5I Wells
In Accordance with the provisions of NCAC Title 15A: 02C.0200
Complete application and mail to address on the back page.
t0
U
Sm
N
0
TO: DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DATE: July 30 , 1999
A. PERMIT APPLICANT
4-
c.n
Name: Hamilton Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc. Attn: Mario Kuhar
Address: 4421 Waterfront Drive
City: Glen Allen State: VA Zip Code: 23060
County: Henrico Telephone: [phone]
B. PROPERTY OWNER (if different from applicant)
Name: City of Washington, Attn: -City Manager
Address: 201 East Second Street
City: Washington State: NC Zip Code: 27889
County: Beautort Telephone: (252) 975=9319
C. STATUS OF APPLICANT
Private: Commercial: x
County: Municipal:
Federal: State:
Native American Lands:
D. FACILITY (SITE) DATA
(Fill out ONLY if the Status is Federal, State, County, Municipal or Commercial).
Name of Business or Facility: Hamilton Beach/Proctor-Silex, Inc.
Address: 234 Springs Road
City: Washington Zip Code: 27889 County: Beaufort
Telephone: [phone] Contact Person: Mario Kuhar
E. INJECTION PROCEDURE
Provide a detailed description of all planned activities relating to the proposed injection
facility including but not limited to:
(1) construction plans and materials; See Attachment E
(2) operation procedures; and
(3) a planned injection schedule.
GW-57 REM (May 1998) Page 1 of 5
0
0
7.0rn
O n
am,
0<
D 0
rn0
R1
<nz
m73
H
O

F. DESCRIPTION OF SITE See Attachment F
Provide a brief description of the contamination incident and the incident number
assigned by the Division of Water Quality staff in the Department's Regional Office:
G. HYDROGEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION See Attachment G
Provide a hydrogeologic description, soils description, and cross section of the subsurface to a
depth that included the known or projected depth of contamination. The number of borings
shall be sufficient to determine the following:
(1) the regional geologic setting;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
significant changes in lithology;
the hydraulic conductivity of the saturated zone;
the depth to the mean seasonal high water table; and
a determination of transmissivity and specific yield of the aquifer to be used for
injection (showing calculations).
H. MONITORING PROCEDURE See Attachment H
Provide plans for proposed location and construction details of groundwater monitoring well
network, including a schedule for sampling and analytical methods. Include any
modeling/testing performed to investigate injectant's potential or susceptibility to change
(biological, chemical or physical) in the subsurface.
I. WELL USE Will the injection well(s) also be used as the supply well(s) for the following?
(1) The injection operation?
(2) Personal consumption?
J. CONSTRUCTION DATA (check one)
YES
YES
NO X
NO X
EXISTING WELL being proposed for use as an injection well. Provide the
data in (1) through (7) below to the best of your knowledge. Attach a copy
of Form GW-1 (Well Construction Record) if available.
X PROPOSED WELL to be constructed for use as an injection well. Provide
the data in (1) through (7) below as PROPOSED construction
)rary Injection Points specifications. Submit Form GW-1 after construction.
(1) Well Drilling Contractor's Name:
Radian Mobile Field Services
NC Driller Registration number: TBD
(2) Date to be constructed:
TBD
Approximate depth of each boring (feet):
Number of borings: 3, 6
10, 35
GW-57 REM (May 1998) Page 2 of 5

(3)
NA
Well casing:
Type: Galvanized steel_ Black steel_ Plastic Other (specify)
Casing depth: From to ft. (reference to land surface)
Casing extends above ground inches
(4) Grout:
NA Grout type: Cement Bentonite _ Other (specify)
Grouted surface and grout depth (reference to land surface):
around closed loop piping; from to (feet).
around well casing; from to (feet).
(5)
NA
(6)
NA
(7)
NA
Screens
Depth: From to feet below ground surface.
N.C. State Regulations (Title 15A NCAC 2C .0200) require the permittee to make
provisions for monitoring wellhead processes. A faucet on both influent (recovered
groundwater) and effluent (fluid being injected into the well) lines is generally
required.
Will there be a faucet on the influent line? yes no
Will there be a faucet on the effluent line? yes no
SOURCE WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION (if different from injection
well). Attach a copy of Form GW-1 (Well Construction Record). If Form GW-1 is not
available, provide the data in part G of this application form to the best of your
knowledge.
NOTE: THE WELL DRILLING CONTRACT`ORCAN SUPPLY int DA lA FOREITHER With TING-OR
PROPOSED WELLS IF THIS INFORMATION IS UNAVAILABLE BY OTHER MEANS
K. OTHER WELL DATA See Attachment.. K
Provide a tabulation of data on all wells within ''A mile of the injection well(s), excepting
water supply wells serving a single-family residence, which penetrate the proposed injection
zone. Such data shall include a description of each well's type, depth, record of abandonment
or completion, and additional information the Director may require.
L. PROPOSED OPERATING DATA
(1) Injection rate: Average (daily) 15-50gallons per minute (gpm)
(2) Injection volume: Average (daily)16 , 000 gallons per day (gpd)
(3) Injection pressure: Average (daily)100-80Qlounds/square inch (psi)
(4) Injection temperature:Average (January) ° F, Average (July) ° F Ambient
(5) Hydraulic capacity of the well: NA
(6) Expected lifetime of the injection facility: 5 years days
(7) Give a description of how the above data will be measured and controlled:
Pressure gauges and a control valve.
GW-57 REM (May 1998) Page 3 of 5

M. INJECTION -RELATED EQUIPMENT
See Attachment M
Attach a diagram showing the detailed plans and specifications of the surface and subsurface
construction details of the system.
N. LOCATION OF WELL(S)
See Attachment N
Attach a scaled, site -specific map(s) showing the location(s) of the following:
(1) the proposed injection well(s);
(2) all property boundaries;
(3) contour intervals not exceeding two feet;
(4) the direction and distance from the injection well or well system to two nearby,
permanent reference points (such as roads, streams, and highway intersections);
(5) all buildings within the property boundary;
(6) any other existing or abandoned wells, including water supply and monitoring wells,
within the area of review of the injection well or wells system;
(7) potentiometric surface showing direction of groundwater movement;
(8) the horizontal and vertical extent of the contaminant plume (including
isoconcentration lines and plume cross sections);
(9) any existing sources of potential or known groundwater contamination, including
waste storage, treatment or disposal systems within the area of review of the injection
well or well system; and
(10) all surface water bodies within 1000 feet of the injection well or well system..
O. INJECTION FLUID DATA
(1) Fluid source, if underground, from what depth, formation and type of rock/sedtment
unit will the fluid be drawn (e.g., granite, limestone, sand, etc.).
NA
Depth:
Formation:
Rock/sediment unit:
(2) Provide the chemical, physical, biological and radiological characteristics of the fluid
to be injected. See Attachment 0
P. PERMIT LIST
Attach a list of all permits or construction approvals that are related to the site, including but
not limited to:
(1) Hazardous Waste Management program permits under RCRA
(2) NC Division of Water Quality Non -Discharge permits
(3) Sewage Treatment and Disposal Permits
(4) Other environmental permits required by state or federal law.
NPDES Permit No. NC0086151
GW-57 REM (May 1998) Page 4 of 5

Q.
CERTIFICATION
"I hereby certify, under penalty of law, that I have personally examined and am familiar with
the information submitted in this document and all attachments thereto and that, based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining said information, I believe
that the information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment, for submitting false
information. I agree to construct, operate, maintain, repair, and if applicable, abandon the
injection well and all related appurtenances in accordance with the approved specifications
and conditions of the Permit."
(Signature of Well Owner or Authorized Agent)
If authorized agent is acting on behalf of the well owner,
please supply a letter signed by the owner
authorizing the above agent.
R. CONSENT OF PROPERTY OWNER (Owner means any person who holds the fee or other
property rights in the well being constructed. A well is real property and its construction on
land rests ownership in the landowner in the absence of contrary agreement in writing.)
If the property is owned by someone other than the applicant, the property owner hereby
consents to allow the applicant to construct each injection well as outlined in this application
and that it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the injection well(s)
conforms to the Well Construction Standards (Title 15A NCAC 2C .0200)
L
(Signature Of roi
wner If Different From Applicant)
Please return two copies of the completed Application package to:
UIC Program
Groundwater Section
North Carolina DENR-DWQ
P.O. Box 29578
Raleigh, NC 27626-0578
Telephone [phone]
GW-57 REM (May 1998) Page 5 of 5

Attachment F
Description of Site
The Abbott Laboratories Laurinburg facility is located on approximately 51 acres of land at the
intersection of U.S. Highway 15-501 and U.S. Highway 401 By -Pass in Laurinburg, North
Carolina. The facility was constructed by Abbott Laboratories in 1969 and produces medical
devices including sets for intravenous administration of drugs and health maintenance solutions.
Products are manufactured using polyvinyl chloride and other plastics.
The operation of a former solvent disposal pit between 1970 and 1976 resulted in groundwater
contamination at this site. Several phases of remediation have been conducted. Property line
groundwater intercept wells have been in operation since November 1993. Source area
remediation was first conducted in the Fall of 1995 using in situ volatilization (MecTool).
Subsequently, a groundwater remediation system consisting of 2-Phase Vacuum Extraction and
deep groundwater pumping was constructed to extract dissolved contaminants from the shallow
source area (zero to 20 feet below land surface) and the underlying sand and gravel aquifer (20 to
80 feet below land surface).
The groundwater remediation system began operation in August 1996. As of February 2000,
approximately 835 pounds of contaminant mass had been removed by this remediation system.
Throughout this period, remedial performance has been monitored and a number of remedial
optimization measures have been implemented. These measures have included:
• Upsizing groundwater pumps to maximize contaminant extraction rates;
• Rehabilitating extraction wells to maintain well efficiency;
• Groundwater modeling to reduce the number of wells required to achieve plume
containment at the southern property line;
• Pulsing the 2-Phase Vacuum Extraction system to increase the cost effectiveness of
shallow contaminant mass removal;
• Discontinuing 2-Phase Vacuum Extraction when mass removal from the shallow zone
reached asymptotic levels;
• Modifying the post closure sampling program to reduce the number of wells sampled,
and
• Evaluating the potential of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as an alternative
remedial strategy for this site.
Remedial action at this site has been effective at reducing the mass, concentration, and mobility
of contaminants. The groundwater contaminant plume is shrinking. Yet, groundwater
contaminant concentrations in the source area remain more than two orders of magnitude greater
than clean up levels. The current pump and treat system continues to extract more than
10 pounds of contaminants per month, but progress toward achieving clean up levels is slow. It
F-1

Attachment K
Other Well Data
Well Id
Date Installed
Date Abandoned
Total Depth
Screened Interval
Casing Diameter
2P-1
1/17/1996
NA
20
5-20
4
2P-2
1/17/1996
NA
20
5-20
4
2P-3
1/10/1996
NA
20
5-20
4
2P-4
1/10/1996.
NA
20
5-20
4
2P-5
1/10/1996
NA
20
5.20
4
2P-6
I/10/1996
NA
20
5.20
4.
2P-7
I/10/1996
NA
20
5.20
4
EW-I
6/9/1994
Sept -Nov 1995'
19.3
8.9 - 18.9
4
EW-2
1/9/1995
NA
15
9.9 - 14.9
4
MW-la
3/7/1990
Sept -Nov 1995'
14.1
4.1 - 14.1
2
MW-lb
3/7/1990
7/23/1990
18.6
15.6 - 18.6
2
MW-2
3/8/1990
NA
14.6
4.6. 14.6
2
MW-2b
7/26/1990
NA
23:7
18.7 - 23.7
2
MW-3
3/8/1990
Sept -Nov 1995'
14
4-14
2
MW-4
3/7/1990
Sept -Nov 1995'
14.1
4.1 - 14.1
2
MW-5
3/6/1990
NA
33
23.33
2
MW-6a
7/23/1990
NA
10
5-10
2
MW-6b
7/25/1990
NA
19
14-19
2
MW-7a
7/27/1990
NA
10.4
5.4 - 10.4
2
MW-76
7/26/1990
NA
21
16-21
2
MW-7d
7/19/1991
NA
43
34-43
2
MW-8a
7/26/1990
NA
8.8
3.8 - 8.8
2
MW-8b
7/26/1990
NA
16
13.0 - 16.0
2
MW.8d
2/3/1992
NA
57.2
48.2.57.2
2
MW-9a
7/24/1990
NA
10.6
5.6. 10.6
2
MW-9b
7/23/1990
NA
20
15-20
2
MW-l0a
7/26/1990
NA
10.8
5.8 - 10.8
2
MW-10b
7/24/1990
NA
26.5
16.5.26.5
2
MW-I0d
1/17/1996
NA
40
30-40
2
MW-II
7/27/1990
NA
33
28.0 - 33.0
2
MW-lld
7/25/1990
NA
80.1
65.1 - 80.1
2
MW-12b
7/19/1991
NA
14.6
5.6 - 14.6
2
MW-13b
7/18/1991
NA
18.3
9.3 - 18.3
2
MW-14b
7/19/1991
Oct-95
16
7.0 - 16.0
2
MW-15b
7/17/1991
NA
38.6
29.6.38.6
2
MW-I5d
7/16/1991
NA
77.5
68.5 -77.5
2
MW-I6b
7/17/1991
NA
24.25
15.25-24.5
2
MW-I6d
7/18/1991
NA
71.5
62.5 - 71.5
2
MW-17b
7/18/1991
NA
34.5
25.5 - 34.5
2
MW-18b
2/5/1992
NA
14.5
5.5 - 14.5
2
MW-18d
2/7/1992
NA
57.1
48.1 -57.1
2
MW-19b
4/24/1992
NA
25 -
15-25
2
MW-19d
4/27/1992
NA
_ 73.8
63.8 - 73.8
2
MW-20b
4/28/1992
NA
27
17.27
2
MW-20d
4/27/1992
NA
78
68 - 78
2
MW-21b
Oct-95
NA
25
7.0- 16.0
2
MW-23b
1/17/1996
NA
20
8.20
2
MW-23d
1/17/1996'
NA
40
30-40
2
MW-24b
1/11/1996
NA
20
10-20
2
MW-25b
1/11/1996
NA
20
10-20
2
MW-26b
1/11/1996
NA
20
10-20
2
MW-27d
1/11/1996
NA
40
30-40
2
OW-1
6/4/1994
• Sept -Nov 1995'
19.35
14.3 - 19.0
2
OW-2
6/8/1994
Sept -Nov 1995' _
19.2
14- 18.7
2
OW-3
6/8/1994
Sept -Nov 1995' .
19.2
14- 18.7
2
OW-I0
1/9/1995
NA
15
10-15
2
OW-15
1/10/1995
NA
15
10-15
2
OW-30
1/10/1995
NA
15
10-15
2
OW-50
1/10/1995
NA
15
'10-15
2
RW-1
7/24/1990
Sept -Nov 19951
18.2
15.7 - 18.2
2
RW-2
Oct-93
NA
71
31-71
4
RW-3
Oct-93
NA
71
31.71
4
RW-4
1/17/1996
NA
75
35 .75
4
RW-5
1/16/1996
NA
75
35-75
4
RW-6
1/17/1996
NA
75
35-75
4
RW-7
1/17/1996
NA
75
33-75
4
Well destroyed during in -place volatilization remediation effort.
2P = 2-Phase extraction well.
EW = Extraction well.
M W = Monitoring well.
OW =Observation well.
RW = Recovery well.

Attachment N
Potentiometric Surface Maps
See attachment G for maps depicting the potentiometric surface showing the direction of
groundwater movement. These maps are from 1990 through 1992 prior to initiation of
remediation efforts on the site. They reflect the natural groundwater flow conditions at the site
that are not altered by the current remediation system. The remediation system will be shut off
during the pilot -scale test. Therefore, these potentiometric surface maps depict the flow
conditions as they will be during the pilot -scale test.

Attachment 0
Injection Fluid Data
The technology chosen to cleanup chlorinated solvent contamination in the groundwater depends
on reductive dechlorination and utilizes activated iron powder (Zero Valent Iron) as an electron
donor. The iron powder is mixed with water, molasses, and a thixotropic agent is added in order
to control slurry viscosity. In general, slurry properties and composition will remain fairly
constant, containing: -
1. Water
2. Thixotropic Agent
3. Iron Powder
4. Molasses
69%to 91.8%
0.2%to1%
3 % to 20 %
5% to 10%
Note: Fluid viscosity is expected to range from 1500 cp to approximately 5000 cp.
The above composition is expressed as weight percent. Thixotropic agents typically employed
include Guar Gum or a high molecular weight water-soluble acrylamide polymer. These
materials are non -toxic biodegradable products that are widely used throughout industry from
foods to mining and waste water treatment.

Attachment P
Permit List
1. Permit to Discharge Remediated Groundwater as Wastewater under the Pretreatment
Program - Pretreatment Permit No. NC0020656-0002
2. Stormwater Discharge General Permit — Permit No. NCG030000
3. Air Permit — Permit No. 3921R6

is appropriate at this time to evaluate alternative remedial action technologies that have the
potential to achieve site closure, while minimizing the life cycle cost of remedial action.
This site is regulated by the Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section, Inactive Sites
Branch under case # NO NCD 000 0040.
F-2

Excerpt from : Pre -Construction Report, October 1995 (Radian Engineering)
2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES
Radian performed field activities for the pumping test between January 9 and
January 27, 1995. These activities included well installation, water level measurement, and a
three-day pumping test. This section describes the procedures used to perform the test.
2.1 . Well Installation
Radian installed an extraction well (EW-2) and four observation wells (OW-10,
OW-15, OW-30, and OW-50) prior to conducting the pumping test. The wells were installed by
Carolina Drilling under the supervision of an on -site geologist on January 9 and 10, 1995. Well
EW-2 was drilled to a depth of 15 feet and screened from 9.9 to 14.9 feet below ground level
within a predominantly clayey sand interval. Well EW-2 was constructed with five feet of
4-inch diameter 0.010-inch slot wire -wound stainless steel screen and ten feet of 4-inch diameter
PVC casing.
Each observation well was drilled to a depth of 15 'feet and screened from 10 to
15 feet below ground level. The wells were constructed with 5 feet of 2-inch diameter,
0.010-inch machine -slotted PVC screen and 10 feet of 2-inch diameter PVC casing. All of the
observation wells were screened within the same clayey sand interval as the extraction well.
The well network was configured as shown in Figure 1. Three observation wells
were installed north of the extraction well at radii of 10, 30, and 50 feet. The fourth observation
well was installed 15 feet west of the extraction well to measure the degree of isotropy associated
with the uppermost aquifer unit.
Attachment G.doc 2-1

MW-1
LEGEND
O Monitoring Well
A Aquifer Test Extraction Well
o Aquifer Test Observation Well
MW-3
0
O OW-50
O OW-30
O 0W-10
d A EW-2
OW-1.5
MW-8B
eMW-8D
MW-8A
SCALE IN FEET
3
0 so
0
Figure 1. Aquifer Test Extraction Well and Observation Well Locations
Abbott Laboratories, Laurinburg, NC
AC-1097
2-2

2.2 Pumping Test
On Monday, January 23, 1995, Radian mobilized to the site to conduct the
pumping test. The 2-PHASE Extraction system and a mobile air stripper (provided by Four
Seasons Environmental) were set up and wired. Static water levels were measured in the
extraction well, observation wells, and nearby monitoring wells and recorded. Pressure
transducers were installed in wells OW-10 and OW-50 and connected to a data logger to
continuously record water level data.
The test was started at 12:52 PM on Tuesday, January 24. Water levels were
measured and recorded at two minute intervals in observation wells OW-10 and OW-50 using
the pressure transducers and data logger. Water levels in OW-15, OW-30, and MW-3 were
measured periodically using an electric water -level probe and recorded manually on data sheets.
Flow measurements and other operating parameters for the 2-PHASE system were also routinely
recorded. The 2-PHASE system was stopped briefly for a period of approximately one minute
during the afternoons of January 25 and January 26 to check the vacuum pump oil level. The
test was terminated at 9:10 AM on January 27 after 68.28 hours.
The 2-PHASE system was set up to achieve 10.5 feet of drawdown in the
extraction well. The initial flow rate out of the well was 0.54 gallons per minute (gpm) and the
flow rate at the end of the pumping test was 0.27 gpm. A total of 1,469 gallons of water was
removed during the pumping test; therefore, the average flow rate over the entire test was
0.36 gpm
Well construction records and schematics are provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Pumping Test
On Monday, January 23, 1995, Radian mobilized to the site to conduct the
pumping test. The 2-PHASE Extraction system and a mobile air stripper (provided by Four
Seasons Environmental) were set up and wired. Static water levels were measured in the
Attachment G.doc 2-3

extraction well, observation wells, and nearby monitoring wells and recorded. Pressure
transducers were installed in wells OW-10 and OW-50 and connected to a data logger to
continuously record water level data.
The test was started at 12:52 PM on Tuesday, January 24. Water levels were
measured and recorded at two minute intervals in observation wells OW-10 and OW-50 using
the pressure transducers and data logger. Water levels in OW-15, OW-30, and MW-3 were
measured periodically using an electric water -level probe and recorded manually on data sheets.
Flow measurements and other operating parameters for the 2-PHASE system were also routinely
recorded. The 2-PHASE system was stopped briefly for a period of approximately one minute
during the afternoons of January 25 and January 26 to check the vacuum pump oil level. The
test was terminated at 9:10 AM on January 27 after 68.28 hours.
The 2-PHASE system was set up to achieve 10.5 feet of drawdown in the
extraction well. The initial flow rate out of the well was 0.54 gallons per minute (gpm) and the
flow rate at the end of the pumping test was 0.27 gpm. A total of 1,469 gallons of water was
removed during the pumping test; therefore, the average flow rate over the entire test was
0.36 gpm
Attachment G.doc 2-4

4.0 PUMPING TEST RESULTS
Water levels from the four observation wells and monitoring well MW-3 were
measured at regular intervals. These water level data were plotted to prepare a hydrograph for
each well as shown in Figures 2 through 6. The hydrographs show that some degree of hydraulic
influence was evident in each well. Approximately one foot of drawdown was achieved in the
nearest wells, decreasing to approximately 0.1 feet at well MW-3 located more than 100 feet
upgradient of the extraction well. During the first 18 to 24 hours of the test, a consistent
drawdown was noted in each well. After 24 hours, water levels in the wells began to fluctuate.
These fluctuations are attributed to a decrease in the pumping rate and, possibly, to groundwater
recharge from rainfall and melting snow cover.
4.1 Analytical Procedures
The principal model used to analyze the pumping test data is that of a semi -
confined (leaky confined) aquifer with no storage in the confining layer. Time-drawdown data
were analyzed for observation wells OW-10, OW-15, and OW-50. Governing equations and
type curves are those presented by Hantush and Jacob (1955). Type curves were fit to measured
drawdown data by nonlinear least -squares parameter estimation using AQTESOLV software
developed by Geraghty and Miller Modeling Group. AQTESOLV provides solutions for the
analysis of pumping test data in a user-friendly, menu -driven format.
The analysis was tested by also modeling the data from the same three
observation wells as an unconfined aquifer having an initial elastic response with the potential
for delayed yield. Governing equations and type curves for this case are those presented by
Neuman (1975). As in the semi -confined case, type curves were, fit to the measured drawdown
by the least -squares method using AQTESOLV software.
Input to the two aquifer models, in addition to the measured drawdown, is
summarized in Table 1.
Attachment G.doc - 4-1

-3.6
-3.7
-3.8
a -3.9
a>
i
4-
-4
-4 1
-4.2
o -4.3
-4.4
-4.5
-4.6
Figure 2
Hydrograph - OW-10
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
Cumulative Time (Hours)
4-2

i
-3.8
-4
Figure 3
Hydrograph - OW-15
'W -4.2
-4.4
n
o, -4.6
to
1.0
0
-4.8
-5 -
0 6 12 18 ' 24 30 36 -42 48
- - Cumulative Time (Hours)
— Interpolated Depth IN Measured Depth
54
60
66
4-3

-3
-3
-3
-3
Figure 4
Hydrograph - OW-30
.0
-4.3
.6
.
.7
,
.8
^
9
.1
.2
8
18
Cumulative Time (Hours)
— Interpolated Depth • Measured Depth
4-4

-2.9
—3
—3.1
m
i —3.2
CT)
Y
es
—3.3
0
— 3.4
a
o 3.5
—3.6
Figure 5
Hydrograph-.OW-50
—3.7
0
\ThiVall""44"*"\ \1/4
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72
Cumulative Time (Hours)
Recorded Depth
4-5

-4.
-4
Figure 6
Hydrograph - MW-3
oo
58
1..6
62
66
.68
4.7-
- - — .- — — as ...
.0
e.
CI.
CC
Cumulative Time (Hours)
— Interpolated Depth ■ Measured Depth
4-6

TABLE 1
MODEL INPUT USED TO CALCULATE AQUIFER CONSTANTS
Abbott Laboratories, Laurinburg, North Carolina
January 24-27, 1995
Model Input
Data Used
Analysis as a Semi -Confined Aquifer
Q
Average flow rate for the test used
(Total flow/test duration).
r
Distance from extraction well to observation well as measured in the field.
rc
Casing radius equal to 1 inch (2 inch diameter).
rw
Borehole radius equal 4 inches (8 inch diameter).
Analysis as an Unconfined Aquifer
Q
Average flow rate for the test used
(Total flow/test duration).
r
Distance from extraction well -to observation well as measured in the field.
b
Aquifer thickness estimated as depth to confining layer minus depth to
water (approximately 11 feet).
4.2 Results
The results of analyses are summarized in Table 2. Graphs showing the
relationship -between -measured -data -and -type -curves ate provided-inAppendix-A—Hydraulic
conductivity values for the semi -confined model range from 4.6 x 104 cm/sec to 8.8 x 10-4
cm/sec with a harmonic mean of 6.4 x 104 cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivity values for the
unconfined aquifer model range from 7.4 x 104 cm/sec to 9.7 x 104 cm/sec with a harmonic
mean of 8.2 x 104 cm/sec.
Relationships between measured drawdown data and type curves for the
individual wells are -discussed -below.
4.2.1 Well OW-10
Well OW-10 is located 10 feet north of the extraction well. The response to
pumping is indicated as a log -log plot of time versus drawdown (Appendix A). The data was
analyzed using a type curve with a r/B ratio of 0.40. The best fit to the type curve as determined
by the least squares method gave a hydraulic conductivity value of 4.6 x 10-4 cm/sec.
Attachment G.doc 4-7

TABLE 2
AQUIFER CONSTANTS CALCULATED FROM PUMPING TEST DATA
Abbott Laboratories, Laurinburg, North Carolina
January 24-27,1995
Aquifer Parameter
Observation Well
Harmonic
Mean
OW-10 I OW-15
OW-50
Analysis as a Semi -Confined Aquifer
Transmissivity (T) (ft2/min)
9.9x10-3
1.9x10"2 ,
1.6x10-2
1.4x10-2
Storativity (S)
7.8x10'3
1.2x10"3
2.0x10"3
2.1x10"3
r/B
0.40
0.12
0.24
--
Hydraulic Conductivity (K) (cm/sec)
4.6x104 "
8.8x10-4'
7.4x104
6.4x104
Analysis as an Unconfined Aquifer
Transmissivity (T) (f/min)
1.6x10"2
2.1x10.2
1.7x10'2
1.8x10-2
Storativity (S)
7.5x10-3
1.3x10"3
2.0x10"3
2.1x10"3
Specific Yield (Sy)
4.3x10"2
8.8x10"3
6.9x10d
--
P
1.0x10"3
1.0x104
1.0x10'3
--
Hydraulic Conductivity (K) (cm/sec)
7.4x10-
9.7x104
7.9x10"4
8.2x10-0
For comparison purposes, the data was also analyzed as an unconfined aquifer
with delayed yield using a type curve with a (i value of 0.001. The best fit to the type curve gave
&hydraulic conductivity_xalue of 7.4 x 104 cm/sec.
4.2.2 Well OW-15
Well OW-15 is located 15 feet west of the extraction well. The response to
pumping is indicated as.a log -log plot of time versus drawdown (Appendix A). The data was
analyzed using a type curve with a rB ratio of 0.12. The best fit to the type curve as determined
by the least squares method gave a hydraulic conductivity value of 8.8 x 104 cm/sec. This value
is associated with a well that is located perpendicular to a line formed by wells OW-10 and
OW-50, suggesting that only a slight degree of anistropy (about 0.1 orders -of -magnitude) is
inherent in the aquifer tested.
For comparison purposes, the data for well OW-15 was also analyzed as an
unconfined aquifer with delayed yield using a type curve with a R value of 0.001. The best fit to
the type curve gave a -hydraulic conductivity value of 9.7 x 104 cm/sec.
Attachment G.doc 4-8

4.2.3 Well OW-50
Well OW-50 is located 50 feet north of the extraction well. The response to
pumping is indicated as a log -log plot of time versus drawdown (Appendix A). The data was
analyzed using a type curve with a r/B ratio of 0.24. The best fit to the type curve as determined
by the least squares method gave a hydraulic conductivity value of 7.4 x 104 cm/sec.
For comparison purposes, the data was also analyzed as an unconfined aquifer
with delayed yield using a type curve with a R value of 0.001. The best fit to the type curve gave
a hydraulic conductivity value of 7.9 x 104 cm/sec.
4.3 Discussion
Although the amount of drawdown in the observation wells was small, the results
of the pumping test appear to be reasonably representative. Hydraulic conductivity values
obtained for the three observation wells show good agreement. Also, the harmonic mean of the
pumping test -derived hydraulic conductivity values show acceptable agreement with the
harmonic mean of hydraulic conductivity values obtained from slug tests conducted in
comparably screened monitoring wells during the remedial investigation. As expected, the
hydraulic conductivity value from the slug tests (1.7 x 10-4 cm/sec) is lower than the value
calculated for pumping test (6.4 x 104). Nevertheless, the results are within 0.4 orders of
magnitude.
Although the pumping test provided internally consistent hydraulic conductivity
values, the fit between the type curves and measured data was not perfect. Differences between
the measured drawdown and the type curves may be attributed to a number of factors including
differences between assumed and actual aquifer conditions; changes in the pumping rate during
the test; and precipitation effects.
Attachment G.doc 4-9

APPENDIX A
PUMPING TEST SOLUTIONS

Abbott Laboratories
Project No.:
Client:
Abbott Laboratories
654-045-11-01
Location:
Laurinburg, North Carolina
OW-10 Confined/Leaky Aquifer
Drawdowh (ft)
10.
0.1
0.01
I I 1 Hfl1 I I I 1 11111 I I I I 1 1III I I I I I II
0.001
1.
10. 100. 1000.
Time (min)
10000.
DATA SET:
owlocon.Olt
03/0B/91
AQUIFER TYPE:
Leaky
SOLUTION METHOD:
wntufl
TEST DATE:
January 24-27. 1995
TEST HELL:
EV-2
OBS. WELL:
OW -10
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
T - 0.009t ft2hln
s - 0.007a_'a
r/9- 0.400
TEST DATA:
0 - 0.040 ft3/w1n
r - 10.2 ft
re - 0.167 ft
rw - 0.333 It

Radian Corporation
Project No.:
654-045-11-01
Client:
Location:
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
OW-15 Confined/Leaky Aquifer
Drawdowh (ft)
100.
10.
1.
0.1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11IIII 1 1 1 1 111
1 I I I I11±
0.01 el, I l I I I_i_L 1 1 1 1 1 111 1_1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 111
1. 10. 100. 1000. 10000.
Time (min)
DATA SET:
0k15con.eat
03/09/95
AQUIFER TYPE:
Leaky
SOLUTION METHOD:
H.ntue0
TEST DATE:
J.nu.ry 24-27. 1995
TEST NELL:
EV-2
OBS. WELL:
0.-15
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
T - 0.01888 ft2/.18
5 - 0.00123
rifts 0.s27A
TEST DATA
0 - 0.040 ft3/.tn
r - 13.4 ft
re-.0.167 It
rw - 0.333 It

i�.
:1Z
d
k. a
4
=L
;,•9r 1,
t.
1f
2•i
r
"
xl
Y
-04
�ryll1�•
•
t. •
•
4
•.tr
.44
ri • •I_p.
• 4-
1' '(r,f'
t MA
4IP--.ti
• t"
_
kk
I'•• _ �;>t :•
71

Radian Corporation
Project No.:
Client:
Abbott Laboratories
654-045-11-01
Location:
Laurinburg, North Carolina
OW-50 Confined Leaking Aquifer
10.
0.01
10. •
1 1 1 1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 14--
I ,1, 1 1 1 1 1I; I I 1 I Intl I 1 1 1 1 1 I I
100. 1000. 10000.
Time (min)
DATA SET:
ok50con.0at
03/09/95
AQUIFER TYPE:
Leaky
SOLUTION METHOD:
Mantuan
TEST DATE:
January 24-27. 1995
TEST WELL:
Ell-2
OBS. WELL:
ON-50
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
T - 0.01894 ft2/.In
9 - 0.001997
rill- 0.2335
TEST DATA:
0 - 0.048 ft3/.In
r - AAA ft
rc - 0.167 It
rw - 0.333 It

Cl Sent:
Abbott Laboratories
Radian Co. )oratio-n
Project No.:
654-045-11-01
Lace font
Laurinburg, North Carolina
OW=10 Unconfined Aquifer
Drawhown (ft)
10.
0.1
0.01
0.001
1.
1 1 1 11111
10.
1 1 1 11111 I 1 1 I ITTll 1 1 1 I I I1±
1 1 1 11111 1 I 1 ll1U
100. 1000.
Time (min)
1 I 111111
10000.
DATA SET:
02/21/95
AQUIFER TYPE:
Unroof tne0
SOLUTION METHOC:
Neufn
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
i - 0.01576 ft2/etn
S - 0.007476
Sy - 0.04277
e - 0.001
TEST DATA:
O - 0.04E ft'/n1n
✓ - 10.2 ft
e -11. ft

Radian Cc poration
Client:
Abbott Laboratories
Project No.:
654-045-11-01
Location:
Laurinburg, North Carolina
OW-15 Unconfined Aquifer
100. _ 1 1 1-1 11111 1 1 1 111111 1 1 1 111
10.
0.1
0.01
1.
11 'mil 1 1 1 lilil
100. 1000.
Time (min)
1 1 1 1111
10000.
DATA SET:
0e15un.aat
02/20/95
AQUIFER TYPE:
Unconnnea
SOLUT ION METHOD:
Nauman
TEST DATE:
January 24-27. 1995
TEST WELL:
EM-2
OBS: WELL:
0M-15
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
T - 0.0211 tt2/aln
5 - 0.001266
Sy - 0.006812
r- 0.001
TEST DATA:
0 - 0.046 eta/aln
r - 13.4 et
b - 11.1 et

Radian ( 9rporatiori
client:
Abbott Laboratories
Project No.:
654-045-11-01
Location:
Laurinburg, North Carolina
OW-50 Unconfined Aquifer
10.
tct
c1 0.1
0.01
I
I I I I I11 I I .I I I I I4--
I I 11111 I I I I I I I
10. 100. 1000.
Time (min)
10000.
DATA SET:
0w5Oun.out
02/27/95
AQUIFER TYPE:
Unconf lned
SOLUTION METHOD:
Neuman
TEST DATE:
January 24-27. 1995
TEST WELL:
EW-2
OSS. WELL:
ON-50
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
T-.0.01671 ft2/N1n
S - 0.001971
Sy - 0.0006899
- 0.001
TEST DATA:
O - 0.01e ft3/m2n
✓ - AS.9 ft
9 - 11. ft

APPENDIX A
SCHEMATIC SHOWING GENERALIZED
GEOLOGIC PROFILE

WEST
Fine to Coarse Sand
:JQV
HORIZONTAL
0 mM
0 • 200
SCALE IN FEET
OM OW
Q V OM
NN NN
as as
0.37
LOCI
OLO 1000 OM OLO
nNN Inn
NN NM =NN NN
as as aaa as
yr 'V ri
0.32
0.46 = = - 0.50
0.57=
0.95
Clay
0.7:
11.64
0.33
0.59
EAST
GRADE
Silty to Clayey Sand and Clay
Clay with Sand Lenses
Value opposite well
screen represents
maximum drawdown
measured in feet.
Schematic Showing Generalized Geologic Profile and
Maximum Drawdown Measured in Observation Wells
X-SECT
ea

HYDRAULIC TESTING
PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS
(PRINCIPAL AQUIFER)

Excerpt from: Pumping Test Results, Well RW-7, July 1996 (Radian Engineering)
4.0 PUMPING TEST RESULTS
This section presents the results of the step-drawdown and constant -rate pumping
tests. The step-drawdown test, which took place on March 8, 1996, was conducted to select a
pumping rate for the constant -rate test. It is discussed in Section 4.1. The constant -rate test,
which took place from March 11 to 14, was conducted to determine the hydraulic characteristics
of the sand aquifer. It is discussed in Section 4.2.
4.1 Step-Drawdown Pumping Test
The results of the step-drawdown test are illustrated in Figure 4-1 and are
summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Hydraulic response to groundwater extraction is manifested
as changes in water level corresponding to the rate of pumping over the period during which
pumping occurs. Figure 4-1 shows the water -level changes (drawdown) measured in the
pumping well, RW-7, for five different pumping rates (steps). The pumping rate was increased
during each successive step and maintained at that rate for 60 minutes before commencing to the
next step. The graph illustrates the increase in drawdown resulting with each successive step.
Each step is characterized initially by a relatively rapid increase in drawdown followed by a
relatively stable pumping water -level. The fluctuation in drawdown note in the third step was
due to a valve adjustment required to maintain the pumping rate (Q) at 5 gallons per minute
(gpm).
The final step was performed at a pumping rate of 9 gpm and resulted in a
drawdown of 19.60 feet compared to the available drawdown of 20.3 feet based on the pump's
depth in the well. Consequently, a pumping rate of approximately 9 gpm represents the well's
maximum sustainable yield under the test conditions.
Table 4-1 summarizes the hydraulic response measured in RW-7 during each of
the five -one -hour steps. The table also includes the specific capacity calculated for each step.
Attachment G.doc
4-1

Z-b
a
Drawdown (ft below static level)
O 01
J
O
bl
O
0
g
S

TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY TABLE OF STEP-DRAWDOWN PUMPING TEST RESULTS
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
Step
Total Time
(minutes)
Discharge
(gpm)
Drawdown
Specific Capacity
(gpm/ft-dd)
1
60
1.0
2.15
0.47
2
120
2.0
4.82
0.42
3
180
5.0
- 11.24
0.45.
4
240
7.5
16.71
0.45
5
300
9.0
19.60
0.46
gpm/ft-dd = Gallons per minute per foot of drawdown
TABLE 4-2
HYDRAULIC RESPONSE OF SELECTED OBSERVATION WELLS
TO THE STEP-DRAWDOWN PUMPING TEST
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
Observation
Well
Distance from
Pumping Well
(ft)
Screen Interval
(ft above msl)
Hydraulic Response
PZ-2B
10
213 - 203
No response measured.
PZ-2D
11
179 - 169
Response measured 1.2 minutes after
pumping commenced. Drawdown
after 300 minutes was 0.34 feet.
PZ-3B
76
213 -.203
No response measured.
PZ-3D
77
176 -166
No response measured.
MW-10A
98
224 - 219
No response measured.
I
MW-10B
95
213 - 203
No response measured.
Attachment G.doc 4-3

Changes in water level were also monitored in six observation wells to assess the
rate at which the hydraulic response propagated through the sand aquifer and to provide a
preliminary assessment of the radius of influence associated with a short period of pumping. The
observation wells monitored during the step-drawdown test included PZ-2B, PZ-2D, PZ-3B,
PZ-3D, MW-10A, and MW-10B. The, results of the water -level monitoring are summarized in
Table 4-2. The hydraulic response in PZ-2D was measured nearly immediately within
1.2 minutes of test initiation. The rapidity of the response supports the assumption that the sand
aquifer is semi -confined. The absence of hydraulic response in all wells but PZ-2D is attributed
to the fact that the step-drawdown test was initiated shortly after the intercept well system had
been shut off. Consequently, water levels in the area were still recovering and masked any
response associated with the pumping of well RW-7. This conclusion is supported by the
measurement of hydraulic response in these wells shortly after pumping was initiated during the
subsequent constant -rate test. Other factors contributing to the absence of a hydraulic response
in some of the observation wells may include the presence of the discontinuous clay layer and
possible recharge associated with rainfall occurring on the day of the step-drawdown test.
4.2 Constant -Rate Pumping Test
The constant -rate pumping test was conducted for approximately 70 hours at an
average pumping rate of 7.7 gpm with a maximum drawdown of 16.32 feet. The greatest
responses to pumping well RW-7 were recorded in observation wells PZ-2D and -3D.
Therefore, time-drawdown data from these two wells were selected to analyze the hydraulic
characteristics of the sand aquifer. Hydraulic responses to pumping were also recorded in the
other observation wells; however, the effects appear to have been dampened by the clay layer
located between the intake of the pumping well and the observation well screens. Section 4.2.1
discusses the'analytical procedures used to calculate the hydraulic characteristics of the sand
aquifer and Section 4.2.2 discusses the results of the test.
Attachment G.doc 4-4

4.2.1 Analytical Procedures
The principal model used to analyze the pumping test data for observation wells
PZ-2D and -3D is that of a semi -confined (leaky) aquifer with no storage effects in the confining
layer. Governing equations and type curves are those presented by Hantush and Jacobs (1955)
with a correction applied for partial penetration of the observation wells (Hantush, 1961). Type
curves were fit to measured drawdown data by nonlinear least -squares parameter estimation
using AQTESOLV software developed by Geraghty and Miller Modeling Group (Duffield,
1991). Input to the aquifer model, in addition to the measured drawdown, is summarized in
Table 4-3. Results are discussed in the next section.
TABLE 4-3
MODEL INPUT USED TO CALCULATE HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
CONSTANT -RATE PUMPING TEST
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
Model Input
Data Used
Analysis as -Confined -Aquifer
Q
-a -Semi
Average pumping rate for the test used(Total flow/test duration).
r
Distance from pumping well to observation well.
ra
Casing radius.
r,,.
Borehole radius.
b
Aquifer thickness.
Time-drawdown data measured in the other observation wells were analyzed
qualitatively to estimate the radius of influence developed by pumping well RW-7. These results
are also discussed in -the .next -section.- -
4.2.2 Results
The results of analyses are summarized in Table 4-4. The harmonic mean of
transmissivity and storativity are 1.05 ft2/min and 3.7 x 104, respectively. The mean
transmissivity equates to a hydraulic value of 8.9 x iOE3 cm/sec. These values are consistent with
a semi -confined aquifer comprised of fine to medium sand.
Attachment G.doc
4-5

TABLE 4-4
HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS CALCULATED
FROM PUMPING TEST DATA
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
March 11-14,1996
Aquifer Parameter
Observation Well
Harmonic Mean
PZ-2D
PZ-3D
Analysis as a Semi -Confined Aquifer
Transmissivity (T) (fP/min)
0.94
1.18
1.05
Storativity (S)
1.7x104
2.4x10'
3.7x104
rB
0.022
0.017
--
Hydraulic Conductivity (K) (cm/sec)
8.0x104
1.0x10-2
8.9x10-3
Hydrographs showing drawdown plotted versus time since pumping began are
included at Figures 4-2 and 4-4, and graphs showing the relationship between recorded time-
drawdown data and the Hantush leaky aquifer type curves are provided as Figures 4-3 and 4-5.
Relationships between measured drawdown data and type curves for the two observation wells
are discussed below.
Well PZ-2D
a
Well PZ-2D is located 10 feet east of the pumping well. Figure 4-2 is a
hydrograph illustrating drawdown in PZ-2D plotted versus time. The hydrograph shows that the
effect of pumping well RW-7 was evident almost immediately in PZ-2D. The rate of drawdown
was most rapid in the initial 360 minutes but continued at a lesser rate throughout the test,
attaining a final -level of 0.-76-feet below static conditions. The hydrograph also illustrates the
recovery toward static conditions after pumping was terminated. The response to pumping is
indicated as a log -log plot of time versus drawdown (Figure 4-3). The data was analyzed using a
type curve with a r/B ratio of 0.022. The best fit to the,type curve as determined by the least
squares method gave a transmissivity of 0.94, ft2/min and a storativity of 1.7 x 10-3. From the
transmissivity, the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer at PZ-2D was calculated to be 8.0 x 10-3
cm/sec.
Attachment G.doc 4-6

L-b
Figure 4-2. Time - Drawdown Graph for PZ-2D
O
pW
8A
Drawdown (ft below static)
6 b b b b b b
to GO to th to A
b
O
•

\Abbott Laboratori:
Laurinburg, 1\r‘
0
co
0
co
0
In
0
DATA SET:
a: \ PI-20
08/21/9S
CA
ign
ex.
a
I I I ut-111111 I I 1111111ilTil
•5
0
( ) u
mopm:gaa
0
a•
0

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0
-0.5
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
0
1000
2000
?RXi$?.R6T£`.Va•
�.
Time (min) 3000
Figure 4-4. Time - Drawdown Graph for PZ-3D

\ Abbott Laboratc.
\ Laurinburg,
705-016-03-00
cd
I I I I I I
JO
DATA SET:
K \oz-30.0at
06/21/96
ADUIFER TVI \ 0
�h ¢ c
I d .4 ri ry e
1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 I II\ 1 1 1 hhTl1`f -1-1-1
,21
(uu) A/wpm-eau
41
O
m.
L

Well PZ-3D
Well PZ-3D is located 77 feet east of the pumping well. Figure 4-4 is a
hydrograph illustrating drawdown in PZ-3D plotted versus time. As in Figure 4-2, the
hydrograph illustrates a rapid rate of water -level decline initially, followed by a lesser rate of
decline throughout the remainder of the pumping period. A maximum drawdown of 0.59 feet
below static conditions was achieved by the end of the test. As in the preceding hydrograph, the
recovery of the water level toward static conditions is evident after pumping ceases. The
response to pumping is also indicated as a log -log plot of time versus drawdown (Figure 4-5)
The data was analyzed using a type curve with a r/B ratio of 0.017. The best fit to the type curve
as determined by the least squares method gave a transmissivity of 1.18 ft2/min and a storativity
of 2.4 x 104. From the transmissivity, the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer was calculated to
be 1.0 x 1.0-2 cm/sec.
Deep Observation Wells
Drawdown was measured manually in deep observation wells PZ-1D, PZ-4D,
PZ-5D, PZ-10D, PZ-16D, and PZ-16E. The measurements indicate that some degree of
hydraulic response to pumping was evident in all deep wells. The maximum drawdown
measured in each well is summarized in Table 4-5. In general, drawdown was greatest in wells
nearest to the pumping well and decreased with increasing distance from the pumping well. This
trend was apparent when water levels were compared in the five observation wells that were
screened at comparable depths: PZ-1D, PZ-2D, PZ-3D, PZ-4D, and PZ-5D. Relative drawdown
departed from this trend in wells MW-10D, MW-16D, and MW-16E. The drawdown in
MW-10D, which is screened above the other deep wells, was less than the general trend.
Conversely, the drawdown in MW-16D, which is screened below the other deep wells in the
sand aquifer, was greater than the general trend. These departures from the general trend suggest
that the hydraulic response to pumping is not evenly distributed throughout the sand aquifer.
Rather, the response is greater near the bottom of the aquifer and less near the top.
Attachment G.doc 4-11

TABLE 4-5
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN IN DEEP WELLS
PUMPING TEST WELL NETWORK
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
Observation Well
Distance from
Pumping Well (ft)
Screen Interval
Elevation
(ft. above msl)
Maximum
Drawdown
(ft. below static)
PZ-1D
106
' 178 - 168
0.57
PZ-2D
11
179- 169
0.75
PZ-3D
77
176 - 166
0.59
PZ-4D
287
179 - 169
0.46
PZ-5D
221
178 - 168
0.50
MW-10D
92
199 - 189
0.53
MW-16D
54
167 - 157
0.85
MW-16E
54
136 - 131
0.20
The drawdown in well MW-16E was less than that measured in all other deep
wells. However, this result was expected as MW-I6E is screened beneath the lower confining
layer in a liydrogeologic unit separate from the sand aquifer which was pumped. The drawdown
measured in MW-16E was most likely an elastic response to pumping and did not represent the
actual movement of water through the lower confining layer.
Shallow Observation Wells
Drawdown was measured by pressure transducers and recorded by data logger in
observation wells PZ-2B, PZ-3B, MW-10A, and MW-10B. Manual measurements were made in
wells PZ-1B, PZ-4B, and PZ-5B. Figures 4-6 through 4-9 illustrate hydrographs for the four
shallow wells in which drawdown was measured by transducer and Table 4-6 summarizes the
maximum drawdown recorded in each of the shallow wells. As in the deeper observation wells,
a hydraulic response was evident in each shallow observation well. Although the magnitude of
the drawdown was less than that measured in the deep observation wells, the rate of drawdown
was again greatest during the initial minutes of the test and continued throughout the test at a
lower rate.
AttaclunentG.doc 4-12

fib
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.8
-0.9
_1
0
1000
2000
Time (min) 3000
Figure 4-6. Time - Drawdown Graph for PZ-2B
4000
5000

Drawdown (ft below static)
6 6 6 6 b b
;:r• ;J1 :11.
b

tie
Drawdown (ft below static)
0
1000
2000 Time (min) 3000
Figure 4-8. Time - Drawdown Graph for MW-10A
4000
5000

rn
Draw down (ft below static)
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
1000 2000
Time (mbm) 3000
Figure 4-9. T me - Drawdown Graph for MW-10B
4000 5000

TABLE 4-6
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN IN SHALLOW WELLS
PUMPING TEST WELL NETWORK
Abbott Laboratories
Laurinburg, North Carolina
Observation Well
Distance from
Pumping Well (ft)
Screen Interval
Elevation
(ft. above ms1)
Maximum
Drawdown
(ft. below static)
PZ-IB
106
212 - 202
0.32
PZ-2B
10
213 - 203
0.27
PZ-3B
76
213 - 203
0.33
PZ=4B
287
213 - 203
0.37
PZ-5B
220
212 - 202
0.35
MW-10A
98
224 - 219
0.16
MW-10B
95
213 - 203
0.23
However, unlike drawdown in the deep observation wells, which was greatest
nearer the pumping well, drawdown in the shallow wells exhibited an opposite trend. This
uncharacteristic response is attributed to the discontinuous clay layer present between the
pumping well intake and the screened intervals of the overlying shallow wells. The clay layer
acts as a barrier that dampens the hydraulic response dueto_pumping. Consequently, the
magnitude of the hydraulic response is greatest in shallow wells located nearer the outer limits of
the clay layer where the dampening effect is less, even though these wells are located farther
from the pumping well. A schematic illustrating this concept is included as Appendix A.
In summary, Well RW-7 attained a maximum drawdown of 16.32 feet after
approximately 70 hours of pumping at an average rate of 7.7 gallons per minute. -The hydraulic
response to the pumping was evident in all 15 wells comprising the observation well network
and the radius of influence exceeded a distance of 300 feet. The magnitude of the response
increased with depth within the sand aquifer and was diminished in the upper portion of the
aquifer by the presence of a discontinuous clay layer located above the intake of the pumping
well. An elastic response was measured in a separate hydrogeologic unit underlying the lower
confining layer. Analysis of time-drawdown data for wells PZ-2D and PZ-3D showed good
agreement. The harmonic means for the transmissivity, storativity, and hydraulic conductivity
Attachment G.doc
4-17

are 1.05 ft2/min, 3.7 x 104, and 8.9 x 10'3 cm/sec, respectively. These values are consistent with
a leaky confined aquifer comprised of fine to coarse sand.
Attachment G.doc 4-18

ATTACHMENT H
MONITORING PROCEDURE

Pilot -Scale Testing
The pilot -scale test will consist of injecting an iron slurry through three
injection points in Unit A and placing a permeable iron wall perpendicular to the plume
flow direction in Unit B. A slurry of powdered zero-valent iron and a carbon source
carrier will be placed into the subsurface. In Unit A, the slurry will be injected from
approximately 5 feet to 10 feet bgs at the locations shown in Figure 5-5 (see Attachment
N). In Unit B, this slurry will be placed beginning at approximately 15 feet to 35 feet bgs
vertically across Unit B at the locations shown in Figure 5-6 (see Attachment N).
Radian's in house designed Bio-Pumping system will be the vehicle used to apply the
slurry. This pumping system will produce 3,300 psi at 55 gpm peak efficiency. The
system is controlled by an operator that matches volume and pressure to the formation to
most effectively place the slurry.
A direct push technology (DPT) rig pushing a 2.125-inch drill rod will be
utilized to inject the slurry. The rig will push the rod to the top of the hydrogeologic
units as the slurry is being mixed. When the rod is located at the top of a unit the
injec ton head wiIl-be fitted to the top ofthe dnll rod and connected -to the slurry pump.
Injection will begin through the injection nozzle placed above the drive point on the
down -hole end of the drill rod. Th&nozzle is configured with three slots on 120 degree
centers that inject slurry in a "Y" pattern into the formation. The slurry will be
continually injected at the rod is driven through the unit until the rod reaches the
confining layer below. The DPT rod will be pulled out of the formation, and the rig will
be offset to the next injection location where the injection process will be repeated. Each
leg of the "Y" will be pressured approximately 5 to 10 feet into the formation. In Unit B,
six injection points on 8 feet centers will be placed as seen in Figure 5-6.
Newly constructed 1-inch diameter monitoring wells will be utilized to
measure the effectiveness of the treatment during the pilot application. Nine monitoring
wells will be used in both hydrogeologic units. Three wells will be placed upgradient of
the injection points, three downgradient of the injection points, and three adjacent to the

injection points in both Units A and B. These wells will be sampled before, during, and
after the pilot test. Samples will be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, CO2, Ethane, and
Methane. In addition, parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity,
temperature, and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) will be recorded during the
application process to gauge the progress of reactions in the treatment area. The on -site
activities associated with the pilot -scale test will be conducted for a period of
approximately eight weeks.
A technical report will be prepared that describes the results of the bench
and pilot -scale test. It will include the observations recorded during the pilot application,
and the conclusions and recommendations from review of the analytical results from the
monitoring program: Information regarding the radius of influence from the application
wells and the reactivity of site media to the reagents will be presented. The post- ,
treatment results will also be compared with the baseline monitoring results to illustrate
the effectiveness of the technology in reducing VOC concentrations in saturated soil and
groundwater within the treatment area. Lastly, the report will include the
recommendations and estimated cost for implementing full-scale application of the
process.

' ATTACHMENT F

Attachment F
Description of Site
The Hamilton Beach Proctor-Silex (HB PS) facility is located at 234 Springs
Road, north of the City of Washington, in Beaufort County, North Carolina. The facility and
surrounding land parcel are owned by the City of Washington and have been leased by HB PS
since 1990 and previously leased by predecessor companies. The facility is involved in the final
assembly, packaging, and warehousing of small electric household appliances.
Since 1992, when chemicals were initially detected in groundwater, several
phases of environmental investigation have been performed at the site. Soil and water at the site
contain fuel, chlorinated and non -chlorinated volatile organic compounds, and semivolatile
organic compounds that are consistent with the storage and use of petroleum products and
degreasing solvents. The principal chemicals detected at the site are certain volatile organics.
Certain semivolatile organics are detected less. frequently, at lower concentrations, and over a
smaller area. These principal chemicals are no longer in use at the facility. Based on the site's
description and operating history and on the results of the investigations, it is apparent that the
chemicals_detectedin_soiLand_groundwater.originated from multiple sources. There are no
known, on -going, primary sources of trichloroethene or 1,1,1-trichloroethane at the site. A,
possible source of the solvents is the former above -ground storage tank (AST) that contained
trichloroethene and, later, 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The specific source of the petroleum
constituents is unknown. The specific nature, volume, and time period of any releases associated
with these sources is also unknown. Regardless, they have created a "secondary source" within
the soil located near the southeast corner of the plant building.
In 1995, an unknown quantity of oil was accidentally released into a drainage
ditch along the south property line when a North Carolina Department of Transportation work
crew ruptured a former roof drain pipe that transects the source area. HB PS reported the
incident to the appropriate state agency and responded to the release by excavating all visibly
affected soil from the drainage ditch. With the concurrence of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the City of Washington, the excavated soil was
subsequently land farmed in an area east of the employee parking lot. Oil was later measured in
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\Attach F F-1
650138.0701

a monitoring well and free product recovery was initiated. After the volume of product
recovered from the well by periodic manual bailing had diminished, HB PS, with the
concurrence of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
implemented free product recovery using Aggressive Fluid -Vapor Recovery technology on both
the well and the former drain pipe. Recovery efforts have removed approximately 50 gallons of
product, but results have shown steadily diminishing returns.
The facility's site priority ranking score is 70/B, and the incident has been
assigned No. 14338.
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\Attach_F F-2
650138.0701

ATTACHMENT G

Attachment G
(Excerpted from Comprehensive Site Assessment Report)
4.2 Regional Geology
Beaufort County, North Carolina is located in the east -central part of the Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province. The region is characterized by relatively flat, low, topography
with many wetland features. Surrounding areas are drained by the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers
and their tributaries, which are estuarine in the lower reaches. Surface elevation in the county
ranges from approximately 70 feet above sea level in the southwestern part of the county to less
than five feet above sea level in the eastern part.
The region is underlain by a wedge of sedimentary deposits consisting of sand,
silt, clay, limestone, and various combinations of these lithologies. The sediments thicken in a
southeasterly direction attaining a maximum thickness of approximately 3,000 feet in the eastern
part of the county (Robison, 1977) and a thickness of about 1,000 feet near Washington
(Sumsion, 1970). The sediments lie on crystalline metamorphic and igneous bedrock consisting
of schist, gneiss, gram e't , and slate (rB own, 1959)-The sedimtniswhich range in age from
Cretaceous to Recent, can be classified into a number of stratigraphic units or formations. From
oldest to youngest, these stratigraphic units are known to include the Middendorf (formerly
Tuscaloosa) Formation; Black Creek Formation; Peedee Formation; Beaufort Formation; Castle
Hayne Formation; Yorktown Formation; and, undifferentiated surficial deposits. A wedge of
sediments consisting of basal deposits of Early Cretaceous Age may underlie the Middendorf
Formation beneath parts of the region; however, as cited by Brown (1959), the extent of these
Early Cretaceous deposits is uncertain. Also, the Pungo River Formation, important for its
phosphorite beds, underlies parts of the region east of Washington (DeWiest et al., 1967).
Brown (1959) reports that Early Cretaceousdeposits and sediments of the Late
Cretaceous Middendorf Formation, unconformably overlie bedrock in the region. The early
Cretaceous deposits were identified in cuttings from a well drilled in Greenville. Although their
extent is unknown, the deposits comprising this unnamed unit are presumed to be widespread
Ia c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-1
650138.0701

r
throughout the region. Swain and Brown (1964) report that the formation consists primarily of
sand and silt interbedded with green and brown silty clay. The formation is estimated to be
between 150 and 200 feet thick near Washington and to dip toward the southeast at about 20 feet
per mile.
Where the Early Cretaceous deposits are absent, the bedrock is unconformably
overlain by the Middendorf Formation of Late Cretaceous Age. The lithology of the formation is
highly variable but, in general, is characterized by interbedded lenses of pinkish to drab -gray
micaceous sand and clay (Brown, 1959). The upper 150 feet of the deposits consists principally
of lenticular clay. Coarse- to medium -grained sand and gravel occur throughout the formation
but are more common below the upper 150 feet of the deposits. Sumsion (1970) describes the
formation as grading upward from fine sand and silt to coarser sand interbedded with silt and
clay. Brown (1972) estimates that the top of the formation is about 650 feet below sea level near
Washington. The strike of the Middendorf Formation is northeast and the dip is estimated at
more than 20 feet per mile toward the southeast (Brown, 1959).
Approximately 300 feet of the Late Cretaceous Black Creek Formation
unconformably overlies the Middendorf Formation near Washington (Brown, 1972). The
formation, which includes the upper Snow Hill member and a lower unnamed member, varies in
composition, but generally consists of gray lenticular sand interbedded with dark gray. to black
micaceous clay. The unnamed member commonly contains lignitized wood fragments and some
glauconite, and the Snow Hill member contains thin shell beds and glauconite. In its upper part,
the Black Creek Formation is lithologically similar to, and difficult to distinguish from, the
overlying Peedee Formation described below. The top of the formation is about 300 to 350 feet
below sea level near Washington (Brown, 1972 and Sumsion, 1970). The strike of the Black
Creek Formation is reported to be toward the east-northeast in the subsurface (Brown, 1972).
The dip of the formation is difficult to determine due to the nature of the beds but has been
estimated to vary from 11 feet per mile (Sumsion, 1970) to 15 feet per mile (Brown, 1959) in
adjoining Pitt County.
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-2
650138.0701

Approximately 120 feet of the Cretaceous Peedee Formation lies conformably on
the Black Creek Formation near Washington (Brown, 1972). The Peedee Formation consists of
lenticular beds of dark green or gray, medium- to coarse -grained quartz sand interbedded with
thinner layers of clay, dark gray silt, and indurated shell. The top of the formation is about 230
feet below sea level near Washington (Brown, 1972). The strike of the Peedee Formation is
toward the northeast and the dip is southeast at about 10 feet per mile (Sumsion, 1970) to 15 feet
per mile (Brown, 1959) in adjoining Pitt County.
The Beaufort Formation of Paleocene age unconformably overlies the Peedee
Formation. The Beaufort Formation, which is about 35 to 60 feet thick near Washington
(Brown, 1959 and 1972), consists primarily of fine glauconitic sand interbedded with thin layers
of clay, silt, and marl. Near Washington, the top of the formation is about 125 feet (Sumsion,
1970) to 170 feet (Brown, 1972) below sea level. The dip of the Beaufort Formation is toward
the east at about 14 feet per mile in adjoining Pitt County (Sumsion, 1970).
The Castle Hayne Limestone of Eocene age unconformably overlies the Beaufort
Formation. The thickness of the Castle Hayne Limestone increases from about 60 feet thick in
the western portion of Beaufort County to about 250 feet near its eastern border (Brown, 1959).
Near Washington, the formation is between 75 feet (Sumsion, 1970) and 130 feet thick (Brown,
1972). The Castle Hayne Limestone varies in lit,hology and consolidation. It consists of
interlayered gray to white shell limestone, marl, fine- to medium -grained calcareous sand, and
clay. The top of the formation is about 35 feet (Brown, 1972) to 50 feet.(Sumsion, 1970) below
sea level in the vicinity of Washington. The regional strike of the formation is east-northeast and
the dip is toward the southeast at 10 to 30 feet per mile (Brown, 1959).
The Yorktown Formation of Miocene age unconformably overlies the Castle
Hayne Limestone. The thickness of the Yorktown Formation is about 30 feet near Washington,
but may reach a thickness of 200 feet in eastern parts of Beaufort County (Brown, 1959 and
1972). Brown (1959) describes the lower part of the Yorktown Formation as massive
interbedded marine clays. In the upper part, it is composed of light-colored sandy shell beds and
marls. Similarity of the upper part of the formation with the overlying younger deposits makes
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-3
650138.0701

distinguishing between them difficult (Sumsion, 1970). The top of the formation is about 35 feet
below sea level in the vicinity of Washington (Brown, 1972). The formation strikes
northeastward and dips toward the southeast at less than 25 feet per mile (Brown, 1959).
Undifferentiated surficial deposits of varying origin and age (Pleistocene to
Recent) generally blanket the region and unconformably overlie the Yorktown Formation. The
surficial deposits consist of sand, sandy clay, clay, and gravel. The unit ranges from a few feet
to about 60 feet in aggregate thickness throughout the region (Brown, 1959). Near Washington,
the unit is about 35 feet thick (Brown, 1972). The deposits exhibit little stratification other than
localized cross -bedding.
4.3 Site Soils and Geology
This section describes the soils and geology at the facility. Interpretation of
subsurface• conditions at the site is based on boring and drilling logs developed during the CSA
and on observations noted and recorded during previous subsurface investigations.
Consequently, the discussion is limited to the upper 75 feet of sediments penetrated at the site.
4.3.1 Soils
Soil at the site has been mapped as Urban land (Kirby, 1995). This classification
describes areas where the original soil has been altered by cutting, filling, and grading such that a
soil series is not recognized. However, soil observed during the subsurface investigations
appears characteristic of the Craven fine sandy loam, Leaf silt loam, and Lenoir loam series,
which occur over large areas surrounding the site. The soil at the site consists primarily of
complexly interbedded silty, to clayey sand, sandy to clayey silt, sandy to silty clay, and clay.
The color of the soil is also variable ranging from light- to dark -gray to dusky brown with
frequent orange mottling in the subsoil.
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-4
650138.0701

4.3.2 Geology
The subsurface geology of the upper 75 feet of sediments underlying the site is
characterized by three stratigraphic units. These units, from lower to upper, are the Castle Hayne
Limestone, the Yorktown Formation, and the overlying undifferentiated surficial deposits. This
sequence of stratigraphy is consistent with regional subsurface conditions described in
Section 4.2.
Well MW-226 was the only well at the site that was drilled deep enough to reach
the Castle Hayne Limestone. In this well, the limestone formation was encountered immediately
below the Yorktown formation at a depth of 69 feet below land surface. The Castle Hayne
formation underlying the site, based on drill cuttings from the upper six feet of the unit, is
greenish gray to white shell limestone.
The top of the Yorktown Formation occurs approximately 30 to 40 feet below
land surface and is characterized by a transition zone of silty sand interbedded with clay, grading
downward to predominantly clay. The transition zone is, itself, up to 10 feet thick as shown on
cross -sections prepared for the site. The locations of cross -sections A -A' to C-C' are depicted on
Figure 4-3 and the cross -sections are illustrated on Figures 4-4 to 4-6. Below the transition zone,
the formation consists of dark greenish gray clay and silty clay containing gastropod shells and
shell fragments. The formation is continuous across the site having been encountered in all of
the deeper CPT borings advanced during the CSA and also having been noted in a deeper boring
drilled during a previous investigation (MW-201D). Based on drill cuttings from well MW-226,
the bottom of the unit is at 69 feet below land surface. The thickness of the Yorktown formation
is approximately 33 feet at this location as illustrated on cross -sections B-B (Figure 4-5).
Undifferentiated surficial deposits form the uppermost stratigraphic unit at the
site. The deposits, which extend from land surface to the top of the Yorktown Formation, are
about 30 to 40 feet thick as illustrated in cross -sections A -A' (Figure 4-4) to C-C' (Figure 4-6).
From land surface to a depth of approximately 15 feet, the surficial deposits consist of
complexly interbedded sediments that range in texture from fine sand to clay. Between a depth
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doe\App-G (07/13/99) G-5
650138.0701

H'r
of approximately 5 and 15 feet below land surface, the finer -grained sediments form a layer,
ranging from 3 to 12 feet thick, that appears to be continuous beneath the site. Below this layer,
the surficial deposits are characterized by light gray to green, predominantly silty sand
interbedded with light to medium gray, fine- to medium -grained sand, and some clay lenses.
Below a depth of approximately 22 feet the deposits contain shells and shell fragments. The
shell -bearing deposits could represent sediments of Late Miocene age, which are difficult to
distinguish from the younger, overlying deposits; consequently, regardless of age, they are
included with the surficial deposits in this report.
5.2 Regional Hydrogeolo2y
The stratigraphic unitsdescribed in Section 4.0 can be grouped into several
distinct hydrogeologic units on the basis of their hydrologic properties. The region's principal
hydrogeologic units include, from deepest to shallowest, the Cretaceous aquifer system, the
Beaufort aquifer, the Tertiary limestone aquifer, the Yorktown confining layer, and the surficial
aquifer. This section briefly describes these hydrogeologic units and Table 5-4 correlates the
units with the stratigraphic units that comprise them.
The Cretaceous aquifer system includes interbedded sand, silt, and clay deposits
in the unnamed Early Cretaceous unit and in the Middendorf, Black Creek, and Peedee
Formations of Late Cretaceous age. Sumsion (1970) identified four individual aquifers in the
system, each separated by extensive beds of clay. Groundwater in the aquifers is confined and
recharge occurs as leakage from overlying units. The aquifer system is more than 700 feet thick
near Washington; however, the depth to brackish water is about 200 feet (Robison, 1977).
Therefore, near Washington, only the upper aquifer in the system, which occurs in the Peedee
Formation, is capable of supplying potable water. Because of the thinness and moderate
permeability'of the fresh -water zone, individual wells are not anticipated to yield above 100
gallons per minute (Robison, 1977). Groundwater obtained from depths greater than 150 feet is
soft and of good quality (Brown, 1959).
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-6
650138.0701

The Beaufort aquifer is comprised of glauconitic and argillaceous sands,
indurated shell, and impure limestone with the glauconitic sand beds being the most productive
deposits (Brown, 1959). Groundwater in the aquifer is confined and recharge occurs as leakage
from overlying units. the yield of individual wells completed in the Beaufort aquifer ranges
from 15 to 150 gallons per minute. The quality of groundwater in the Beaufort aquifer is soft
(Sumsion, 1970).
The Tertiary limestone aquifer is comprised of the Castle Hayne Limestone and
associated calcareous sand deposits. Groundwater in the aquifer is confined and recharge occurs
as leakage from overlying and underlying units (Brown, 1959). The aquifer ranges from about
50 to 100 feet thick near Washington to about 400 feet thick in eastern part of Beaufort County.
The aquifer is highly productive throughout much of the region where it occurs in sufficient
thickness. Small diameter wells yield from 5 to 150 gallons per minute; where the aquifer is
thickest, large diameter gravel -packed wells yield up to 1000 gallons per minute (Brown, 1959).
Groundwater in the aquifer is very hard, exhibits moderate to high levels of dissolved solids, and
moderately high pH. The water commonly contains hydrogen sulfide gas and excessive iron
(Robison, 1977).
Although thin sand lenses and sand beds associated with the Yorktown Formation
can provide water to wells, thick marine clay deposits that predominate the unit form a confining
bed underlying the surficial aquifer.
The surficial aquifer is the uppermost hydrogeologic unit in the region. It consists
of interbedded sand and clay deposits. Groundwater in the aquifer is unconfined and recharge to
the surficial aquifer occurs over broad interfluvial areas throughout the region. The yield of
wells completed in the surficial aquifer is between two and ten gallons per minute (Brown,
1959). Groundwater in the surficial aquifer is typically corrosive and contains excessive iron.
1a c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-7
650138.0701

fl
5.3 Site Hydrogeology
The hydrogeologic units discussed in the preceding section are all represented at
the facility. Locally, five hydrogeologic units have been penetrated at the site. These units
include, from upper to lower: a shallow groundwater reservoir, a shallow confining bed, a semi -
confined sandy aquifer, the Yorktown confining bed, and the Tertiary limestone aquifer.
Because the scope of the site assessment focused primarily on the surficial deposits, only one
boring (MW-226) was advanced below a depth of 52 feet. Nevertheless, a brief description of
the Tertiary limestone aquifer underlying the facility is included following more detailed
treatment of the hydrogeologic units within the surficial and Yorktown deposits.
The uppermost hydrogeologic unit coincides with the complexly interbedded fine
sand to clay deposits that comprise the upper five to ten feet of sediments underlying the site.
The unit, which is identified as Unit A in this report, is not considered to be an aquifer due to the'
variable permeability, discontinuous nature, and thin saturated thickness of its component
deposits. Rather, the unit's function at the site can be viewed as a groundwater reservoir that
supplies base flow to surface water and, potentially, recharge to underlying aquifers. The
hydraulic conductivity of deposits comprising Unit A was measured as ranging from 3.6 x 10-2
ft/day to 7.4 x 10-2 ft/day. These measurements represent average values because the intervals
tested include interlayered beds of both low permeability clay and more permeable sand.
Measurement of hydraulic conductivity at 5.7 x 10- ft/day in one location may represent an
interval of lower permeability clay deposits comprising Unit A or may represent a section of the
confining bed underlying the unit. Based on a textural description of the deposits, the hydraulic
conductivity of the more permeable sand layers is in the order of 10° ft/day and the effective
porosity is estimated to range from approximately 3 percent for the clay deposits to
approximately 20 percent for the sand deposits (Brassington, 1988). Groundwater within Unit A
is expected to occur under water table conditions; although, water within an individual sand layer
or lens may be confined. The top of Unit A occurs at the water table which is typically about
three to five feet below land surface at the site. The base of Unit A is approximately four
to seven feet below land surface and coincides with the top of a surficial confining bed that is
described below. Therefore, the thickness of Unit A at the site is typically four feet or less.
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-8
650138.0701

Fine-grained deposits, consisting of sandy silt to clay, form a shallow confining
bed immediately below Unit A. Due to its composition of primarily fine-grained deposits, the
confining bed separates Unit A from the underlying semi -confined aquifer described below.
Based on a textural description of the deposits, the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow
confining bed is estimated to be low to very low, on the order of 10-2 ft/day to 10-3 ft/day or less
(Brassington, 1988). As described above, a hydraulic conductivity value, that is likely to be
representative of the confining bed, was measured at 5.7 x 104 ft/day. The top of the shallow
confining bed ranges from about four feet to seven feet below land surface. As a result, the
water table may occur within the confining bed at some locations where the top of the bed is
most shallow. The bottom of the confining bed is as shallow as seven feet below land surface at
some locations and as deep as 16 feet at others. As illustrated in cross -sections A -A
(Figure 4-4) to C-C (Figure 4-6), the shallow confining bed appears to be continuous across the
site but it varies in thickness from about three to ten feet depending on location. Where present
within the shallow confining bed, layers and lenses of more permeable deposits decrease its
effective thickness as a barrier to vertical groundwater flow.
Silty to fine sand deposits form a semi -confined aquifer between the overlying
shallow confining bed and the underlying Yorktown confining bed. The aquifer is identified as
Unit B in this report to distinguish it from the shallow groundwater reservoir that also occurs
within the surficial deposits at the site. Groundwater within Unit B occurs under semi -confined
conditions; recharge to the aquifer is derived through leakage from the overlying units. Based on
a textural description of the deposits, the hydraulic conductivity of the Unit B is estimated to be
moderate, in the range of 1 to 6 ft/day, and the effective porosity is estimated to be
approximately 20 percent (Brassington, 1988). Pumping test results confirm the hydraulic
characteristics estimated from textural analysis. The transmissivity of Unit B was calculated to
range from 63.4 ft2/day to 64.9 ft2/day. These values equate to hydraulic conductivity values
between 3.0 ft/day and 3.1 ft/day. The coefficient of storage calculated from the pumping test
ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0006. As illustrated in cross -sections A -A (Figure 4-4) to C-C
(Figure 4-6), the top of Unit B typically occurs about 12 to 16 feet below land surface at the site,
but may be as shallow as seven feet below land surface where the overlying shallow confining
bed is thin. The base of Unit B is approximately 30 to 40 feet below land surface and coincides
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-9
650138.0701

with the top of the Yorktown confining bed. The thickness of Unit B averages about 25 feet, but
varies considerably across the site ranging from about 15 feet to 35 feet.
The clay deposits of the Yorktown Formation described in Section 4.3.2 comprise
a confining bed overlying the Tertiary limestone aquifer. Due to its high content of clay and silt,
the Yorktown confining bed exhibits a lower hydraulic conductivity than either an overlying
semi -confined aquifer within the surficial deposits or the underlying Tertiary limestone aquifer.
Based on a textural description of the deposits, the hydraulic conductivity of the confining bed is
estimated to be low to very low, on the order of 10-3 ft/day, or less (Brassington, 1988).
Consequently, the confining bed retards the flow of groundwater through it and essentially
isolates the two aquifers from each other. As illustrated in cross -sections A -A' (Figure 4-4) to
C-C' (Figure 4-6), the confining bed is continuous beneath the site with the top of the bed
occurring approximately 40 feet below land surface. The clay deposits were completely
penetrated only at well MW-226 where the bottom of the clay was encountered at a depth of 69
feet below land surface. The thickness of the confining bed at MW-226 is approximately 33 feet
as illustrated in cross-section B-B' (Figure 4-5).
The Tertiary aquifer underlies the Yorktown confining bed at a depth of
approximately 69 feet below land surface. The upper six feet of the aquifer is comprised of shell
limestone. Water levels measured in the aquifer are lower than those measured in the overlying
hydrogeologic units indicating that the aquifer is recharged, in part, through leakage from above.
During the CSA, the water table at the site occurred about three feet below land
surface. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 summarize the depth to water and the corresponding water -level
elevations measured on May 13, 1998 and November 16, 1998, respectively, in selected
monitoring wells located throughout the site. Figure 5-3 depicts the potentiometric surface in
Unit A on May 13, 1998 and incorporates water levels measured in the drainage ditch
(Table 5-5). Although localized variations occur, the horizontal hydraulic gradient at the site
and, therefore, groundwater flow are generally toward the ditch, located east and south of the
facility. Beneath and southwest of the plant building, the hydraulic gradient ranges from 0.002
to 0.004 ft/ft. South and east of the plant building, the gradient increases to about 0.008 ft/ft and,
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-10
650138.0701

approaching the ditch, steepens to more than 0.02 ft/ft. Using the previously noted values for
horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and effective porosity, the average linear groundwater flow
velocity in the more permeable beds in Unit A ranges from 0.01 to 0.04 feet/day. Figure 5-4
depicts the potentiometric surface in Unit B on May 13, 1998. In general, the horizontal
hydraulic gradient and groundwater flow are to the northwest, nearly opposite the direction
measured in Unit A. The horizontal hydraulic gradient in Unit B averages 0.003 ft/ft at the site.
Using the previously noted values for horizontal hydraulic conductivity, and effective porosity,
the linear groundwater flow velocity in Unit B is estimated to average 0.05 feet/day; however,
flow within more permeable deposits comprising Unit B may approach 0.1 ft/day. The range of
velocity values presented is considered representative for the site, but does not take into account
inherent small-scale differences in gradient, porosity, and hydraulic conductivity that occur
within the units. Figures 5-5 and 5-6 depict the potentiometric surface in Units A and B,
respectively, based on water levels measured in November 1998. In Unit A, the configuration of
the potentiometric surface in November is similar to that measured in May. Within Unit B, the
hydraulic gradient in November has shifted to a more northerly direction than was measured in
May.
Water -level elevations measured in four well pairs in May 1998, each comprised
of a well screened in Unit A and a well screened near the bottom of Unit B, indicate the presence
of vertical hydraulic gradients between the two units. Measurements at well pair MW-216 and
MW-217, and well pair MW-222 and MW-223 indicate downward hydraulic gradients of 0.015
and 0.172 ft/ft, respectively. Conversely, measurements at well pair MW-218 and.MW-219, and
well pair MW-220 and MW-221 indicate upward hydraulic gradients of 0.026 and 0.035 ft/ft,
respectively. These measurements, when evaluated in conjunction with the potentiometric
surface maps (Figures 5-3 and 5-4) suggest that much of the site overlies a recharge area for the
underlying hydrogeologic units. However, narrow areas immediately adjacent to the drainage
ditch are, at certain times, discharge areas for groundwater within Unit B; as well as Unit A.
This conclusion is consistent with the concept that groundwater recharge in the region occurs
over the broad areas located between streams. In general, vertical gradients measured in
November 1998 were similar to those measured in May with the exception that gradients in all
well pairs, but one (MW-210/MW-211) were downward.
la c:\hamilton\CAP.doc\App-G (07/13/99) G-11
650138.0701

FIGURES

m
G2
1
`:•G1 \
\ T PLANT BUILDING 1
/ s
B
/ 1 C16
O
CII3
C15/
i
.CI4 0
C7
Ce
C10
226 (onset
C12
C11
J
Y
1
200
C13
0 200
SCALE 1N FEET
e'
rW IOIMI : 1511•
• 1-].
1.0I Cross Section Laces....
Fso•nzr-sr. 1.
�L.
ss '. 4301300001 I.-ssO o
▪ ani
n

SOUTHWEST
A
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
IC-15I
/-29.A
- 10 -
- 15 -
- 20 -
ID
- 25 - 52.0
A
8
IC-I6I
//-28.3
� c-a
29.5
NORTHEAST
A'
28.1
To
52.0
TD
52.0
100
TD
52.0
0 100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
to 0 to
VERTICAL SCALE
m
52.0
LEGEND
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
Total Depth of Boring
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand. Fine Sand.
and Silly Sond
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sond. Sandy
Silt. Silt, and Cloy
As sra+m
Iv.
INTERNA ecc
nu..sis a u _ .
gaussme. PStOI"s... rti
wo.aaw. I rAd-e.l 0

D • KIPS \OCD DD•ISDEC.0
WEST
B
30 —
25 —
20 —
15-
10 —
5-
0-
- 10 —
- 15 —
- 20 —1
-25 — 52.0
IC-IBI
28.4
C-17
28.3
28.3
r
(offset 30'
to south)
11W-226
IG-IBI
26.6
EAST
C-11 8'
28.9
- 35 —
-40 —
-45 —
- 50 —
. TB
52.0
1 1IIT S
7514
.0
m
52.0
28.1
100
ID
52.0
LEGEND
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
Total Depth of Boring
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand, Fine Sand.
and Silty Sand
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sandy
Sill, Silt, and Clay
Shell Limestone deposits
0 100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE
I" AS snow % IW(CYe—� ry,.. 4-e.
�. awa4e cro..-s.1uo� a-e'
eMRW IMFaNATON?O. iw[�=�e.ro. smer,«r.-e... w.
__.-_ Holyatol cA o co-

9
NORTHWEST
C
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5
- 10 —
- 15 —
- 20 —
-25 —
I G-2 I I C-5 I
31.4
31.8
SOUTHEAST
C•
IC-18I IC-12I
28.3 i
28.8
TD
52.0
28.1
TD
52.0
LEGFND
Location Number
v_.
Ground Surface Elevation •
TO Total Depth of Boring
52.0
Higher permeability deposits
including Sond, Fine Sond,
and Silty Sand
Loner permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sandy
Silt, Silt, and Clay
TO
52.0
100
100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE
TD
52.0
AS SnervaN .II
iSM
INTERNATIONALr ef=`
22WT96 _ np4. 1-6
2e1asbaGet c °or -Sect C-Cm:
=wa 6.a6•vmru.• r
-ywarov,.'a eo �.
.]Olb o'PI Ua-e-c
0

a
10 W-201
(27.37
MW-223
0
(27.25)
MW-217
7(24
2
(22.35)
• W113
(23.45)
200
4
3.51)
200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Monitoring Well with
Groundwater Elevation (M5L)
• Surface Water Measuring
Point with Water Elevation
Potentiomelnc Surface
Contour (dashed where inferred)
Groundwater Flo. Direction
AS SWAIN Al '!]wvsa_ frog. 5-3
Pel.nrcnrlh Sins. Mop.
1S1 Tlhe3�9PB�aAw.�R.ab�Sw� rr
BfY9lr
INTERNATIONAL= — 630115 030l I vwuaw I 0

J
• MW-22/22.5
(22.34)
i
li •
23.5
24
24.5
1
MW-216
o
(24.39)
w
3
6
200
25
MW-216
0
(25.16)
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEEENO
Monitoring Well with
Groundwater Elevation (MSL)
Polenliomeldc Surface
Contour (dashed where interred)
Groundwater Flow Direction
AS Snead JI nwree .t • tJ
Ywwwu. sew. wo.
ISn few I.M & w / IY9e
BFa• r �c �Noow' IK
INTERNATIONAL — o-wnYaw� I ow' Io
��wew

200
LEGEND
Monitoring Well with
Groundwater Elevation (MSL)
• Surlace Water Measuring
Point with Water Elevation
Potentiometric Surface
Contour (dashed where inferred)
Groundwater Flow Direction
AS SHWA .n iho€csa nw!. !-!
Pa.nlwm.4c Satan aos.
NRADIAM NIFRN710tW _an w�
' � 6501360401 l SaML0 I

D.\HDPS\DEEP\16DEC96
YW99-222
19.
L.
I
- 20.5
° YW-2k0
20.551
200
SCALE IN FEET
d
o Monitoring�riWell with
Groundwater Elevation (Ma)
Potentiomelric Surface
Contour (dashed where interred)
Groundwater Flow Direction
MIS _�.�. . votWit B. 14.3.mber .nuo s s'.icr. 7aurleroIFIACWIINTERPallOINAL
•rI OUP 10
AS SHOW.
i.occae

TABLES

_ A_
Table 5-4
Relationship Between Stratigraphic Units and Hydrogeologic Units
Hamilton BeachOProctor Sitex, Washington, North Carolina
Period
Epoch
Stratigraphic Unit
Hydrogeologic Unit
General Description
Quaternary
Holocene
Undifferentiated Surficial
Deposits
Surficial Aquifer
Deposits consisting of sand, clay, and marl form the
uppermost aquifer in the region. Groundwater occurs
under water -table conditions.
Pleistocene
Tertiary
Miocene
Yorktown Formation
Yorktown Confining Bed
Massive clay deposits overlying sand lenses and shell
beds form a confining bed that separates the surficial
aquifer from the underlying limestone aquifer.
Eocene
Castle Hayne Limestone
Tertiary Limestone
Aquifer
Shell limestone and calcareous sand deposits constitute
the principal aquifer in Beaufort County. Groundwater
occurs under confined conditions.
Paleocene
Beaufort Formation
Beaufort Aquifer
Glauconitic sands, argillaceous sands, and impure
limestones constitute a fresh -water aquifer in Beaufort
County. Groundwater occurs under confined
conditions.
Cretaceous
Late Cretaceous
Peedee Formation
Cretaceous Aquifer
System
Deposits of complexly interbedded sand, silt, and clay
constitute an aquifer system. Individual aquifers
typically are separated by extensive beds of clay.
Groundwater occurs under confined conditions. Only
the Peedee Formation contains fresh water in westem
Beaufort County.
Black Creek Formation
Middendorf Formation
Early Cretaceous
Unnamed Cretaceous
Deposits
lu c:\hamillon\washington\csa-rpt (1/20/99)

Table 5-5
Groundwater Elevations: May 13, 1998
Hamilton BeachQProctor-Silex, Washington, North Carolina
Well
Measuring Point
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
Depth to Water
(ft. below MP)
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
MW-2018
29.74
2:37
27.37
MW-206
28.79
3.35
25.44
MW-207
33.78
, 3.70
30.08
MW-208
32.11 _
5.49
26.62
MW-209
32.93
t 7.82
25.11
MW-210
32.49
7.39
25.10
MW-211
31.75
6.84
24.91
MW-212
28.45
2.80
25.65
MW-213
28.44
2.90
25.54
MW-214
27.93
2.98
24.95
MW-215
28.06
3.09
24.97
MW-216 .
32.82
8.43
24.39
MW-217
32.75
8.00
24.75
MW-218
31.55
6.37
25.18
MW-219
31.83
•7.33
24.50
MW,220_
31.50
6.37
25.13
MW-221
31.39
7.04
24.35
MW-222
35.11
12.77
22.34
MW-223
35.15
7.90
27.25
Surface Water Elevations
Hamilton BeachOProctor-Silex, Washington, North Carolina
Measuring
Point
Measuring Point
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
Depth to Water
(ft. below MP)
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
W81
22.73
0.79
21.94
W82
23.16
0.81
22.35
W83
23.99
0.54
23.45
W84
23.99
0.48
23.51
W85
24.25
0.85
23.40
MSL = Mean Sea Level
MP = Measuring Point
la c:\hamilton\washington\csa-tpt (1/20/99)

Table 5-6
Groundwater Elevations: November 16,1998
Hamilton BeachOProctor-Silex, Washington, North Carolina
Well
Measuring Point
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
Depth to Water
(ft. below MP) .
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
MW-201S
29.74
3.59
26.15
MW-208
32.11 .
7.25
24.86
• MW-209
32.93
11.25
21.68
MW-210
32.49
9.30
23.19
MW-211
31.75 •
8.97
22.78'__
MW-212
28.45
5.95
22.50
MW-213
28.44
- 4.23
24.21
MW-214
27.93
5.75
22.18
MW-215
28.06
3.87
24.19
MW-216
32.82
10.45
22.37
MW-217
32.75
8.77
23.98
MW-218
31.55
9.40
22.15
MW-219
31.83
8.83
23.00
MW-220
31.5
10.95
20.55
MW-221
31.39
10.52
20.87
MW-222
35.11
15.12
19.99
MW-223
35.15
7.56
27.59
MW-224
33.43
9.79
23.64
MW-225
33.43
9.07
24.36
MW-226
28.46
20:03
8:43 -
MW-227
28.47
6.09
22.38
MW-228
28.71
5.70
23.01
MW-229
30.44
8.67
21.77
MW-230
33.47
12.33
21.14
MW-231
31.94
9.58
22.36
Surface Water Elevations
Hamilton BeachOProctor-Silex, Washington, North Carolina
Measuring
Point-
Measuring Point
Elevation
(ft. above MSL).
Depth to Water
(ft. below MP)
Water -Level
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
W81
22.73
0.68
22.05
W82
23.16
'0.71
22.45
W83
23.99
0.65
•
23.34
W84
23.99
0.60
23.39
W85
24.25
0.96
23.29
la c:\hamilton\washington\csa-rpt(120/99)

HYDRAULIC TESTING PROCEDURES
AND CALCULATIONS

HYDRAULIC TESTING PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS
This appendix describes procedures used to conduct a pumping test and four
"bail -down" tests at the facility. The appendix includes the recorded field measurements and the
calculations performed in analyzing the data.
I.1 Pumping Test
I.1.1 Introduction
A constant -rate pumping test was conducted at well PW-1 located in the area east
of the employee parking lot. The objective of the tests was to determine hydraulic
characteristics of hydrogeologic unit B. The test site was selected based on its location outside
any chemical plume, which allowed the water generated by the test to be discharged without
treatment.
_ PW-1 was pumped-using-an-electric-powered-submersible-pumpWell-yield-was
monitored using a calibrated bucket and stop watch and regulated, as necessary, by adjusting the
pump's impeller speed. The discharge was diverted from the pumping well through a water hose
and released to a drainage ditch. Drawdown in the pumping and observation wells was
measured using an electric water -level indicator and recorded manually.
I.1.2 - _Pumping Test Description
The well network for the pumping test included wells PW-1, OW-10, OW-20,
and MW-220. Well PW-1 served as the pumping well and wells OW-10, OW-20, and MW-220,
served as the observations wells. Wells OW-10 and OW-20 are located 10 feet and 20 feet west
of PW-1, respectively. Well MW-220 is located 48.5 feet south of PW-1. All wells are screened
in hydrogeologic unit B. A constant -rate test was started at 7:34 a.m. on November 5, 1998.
PW-1was pumped at an average rate of 1.6 gallons per minute (0.214 ft/min) and drawdown
la e:ThamiltorAwashingtonkesa-rpt (17/16198)
I-1

was measured in all wells in the test network. Pumping continued uninterrupted until terminated
after 480 minutes. Results of the test are discussed in Section I.1.3.2.
I.1.3 Pumping Test Analysis
This section describes the analytical procedure used to evaluate the data from the
pumping test and presents the results. Tables and graphs of water -level drawdown
measurements utilized in the analyzing the test are included at the end of the discussion.
I.1.3.1 Analytical Procedure
The conceptual model used to analyze the pumping test is that of a semi -confined
(leaky) aquifer with no storage effects in the confining layer. Governing equations and type
curves are those presented by Hantush and Jacobs (1955) with a correctionapplied for partial
penetration of the observation wells (Hantush, 1961). Type curves were initially fit to measured
drawdown data by nonlinear least -squares parameter estimation and, subsequently, matched
visually usingAQTESOLV software developed by Geraghty and Miller Modeling Group
(Duffield, 1991). Input to the aquifer model, in addition to the measured drawdown, included
discharge rate (Q); distance from the pumping well to the observation well (r); well casing radius
(re); borehole radius (rw); and, aquifer thickness (b). Specific input values for these parameters
are listed under "Test Data" on the accompanying graphs.
1.1.3.2 Pumping Test Results
Transmissivity calculated for hydrogeologic unit B ranges from 0.044 fl /min
(63.4 ft/day) to 0.045 ft2/min (64.9 it/day). These values equate to hydraulic conductivity
values between 3.0 ft/day and 3.1 ft/day. The range of hydraulic conductivity values is
consistent with an aquifer comprised of fine-grained silty sand. The coefficient of storage ranges
from 0.0003 to 0.0006, which is typical of semi -confined aquifers.
la c:\hamiltotwashingtonksa•rpt (12/ I6/98)
I-2

Radian International
client
Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Protect Ho.:
650138.0601
Lout ton:
Washington, NC
Pumping Test OW 10
Drawdown (ft)
100.
10.
I I I I I I1II 1 11 I
I I I Hit I I it
10.
Time (m
I I I I I I I I I II14--
1111I
100.
n)
I I I I 1 I I1
1000.
AQUIFER TYPE:
SOLUTION NE THUD:
sn...0
TEST DATE:
ll/N-
1E51 BELL:
DDS. WELL:
Os-10
EMANATED PAMIIEIERS
T - ...l.w u2/nn
TEST DATA.
• - o L. T[lhm
♦[ 0.0a I.
.-
O.Dn
. - as. I.
TEST .ELL''
°..alit
• 0 • - le. II

AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty &Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 -.0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to.
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer.
coefficients for a variety of aquifer teat conditions can
be estimated by A Q T E S 0 L V, including the following:
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers,
and leaky aquifers
o pum ny testa, iujectiun—testsecovery tests,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design
o Nonlinear least -squares estimation of aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of results
o Complete graphical display of results
«c «««««««««««c «««««««>»»»»»>?»»»»»»»»»»»»

AQTESOLV RESULTS
Version 1.10
12/15/98
14:10:4(
========________________________________====aa==a=====_________________________:
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set ow10.dat
Data set title Pumping Test OW-10
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date 11/5/98
Test wel'1 PW-1
Obs. well OW-10
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points 47
Pumping rate 0.214
Radius (distance) to obs. well 10
Radius of pumped well casing 0.083
Radius of pumped wellbore 0.25
Partial Penetration Data:
Depth of top of well screen 1
Depth of bottom of well screen 21
Depth of top of obs. well screen 1
Depth of bottom of obs. well screen21
Hyd. conductivity ratio (Kz/Kr) 1
______=====a=a aaa====a=aa==a=========aaa=aaaa========a================___======
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Hantush (Leaky Aquifer)
===aaa==
' RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
T =
S =
r/B=
ANALYSIS
residual
weighted
Estimate Std. Error
4.4017E-002 +/- 1.2682E-003
6.4284E-004 +/- 4.3263E-005
1.0000E-005 +/- 2.4364E+001
OF MODEL RESIDUALS
= calculated - observed
residual = residual * weight

weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals 47
Number of estimated parameters3
Degrees of freedom 44
Residual mean 0.002898
Residual standard deviation 0.05422
Residual variance 0.00294
Model Residuals:
Time
Observed Calculated Residual
Weight
1 0.4 0.29583 0.10417 1
1.5 0.54 0.4121 0.1279 1
2 0.62 0.50219 0.11781 1
2.5 0.68 0.5755 0.1045 1
'-- 3 0.72 0.63722 0.082776 1
4 0.79 0.73736 ' 0.052641 1
5 0.85 0.81691 0.033089 1
6 0.91 0.88289 0.027105 1
7 0.94 0.93926 0.000736 1
_ 8 0.98 0.98846 -0.0084643 1
9 1.01 1.0321 -0.022113 1
10 1.02 1.0713 -0.051336 1
11 1.07 1.1069 -0.036949 1-
12 .1.09 1.1396 -0.04956 1
13 1.12 1.1696 -0.049635 1
14 1.15 1.1975 -0.047541 1
15 1.18 1.2236 -0.043569 1
16 1.2 1.248 -0.047957 1
18 1.24 1.2926 -0.052556 1
20 1.26 1.3325 -0.072542 1
22 1.31 1.3688-0.05878 1
24 1.35 1.4019 -0.051913 1
26 1.38 1.4324-0.052431 1
28 1.41 1.4607 -0.050717 1
30 1.44 1.4871 -0.047076 1
35 1.49 1.546 -0.056046 1
40 1.54 1:5972 -0.057206 1
50 1.64 1.6828 -0.042835 1
60 1.72 1.7529 -0.032904 1
70 1.8 1.8122 -0.012209 1
80 1.86 1.8636 -0.003619 1
90 1.91 1.909 0.0010076 1
1 1 100 1.95 1.9496 0.00040124 1
r 120 2.02 2.0199 9.7744E-005 1
140 2.09 2.0794 0.010626 1
160 2.14 2.1309 0.0090901 1
180 2.2 2.1764 0.023619 1
200 2.24 2.2171 0.022934 1
220 2.28 2.2539 0.026124 1
240 2.31 2.2875 0.022513 1
260 2.34 2.3184 0.021591 1
280 2.38 2.347 0.032958 1
300 2.41 2.3737 0.036299 1
330 ' 2.45 2:4105 0.039467 1
360 2.5 2.4442 0.055839 1
420 2.56 2.5037 0.056255 1
480 2.63 2.5554 0.074635 1

=======__======_=====================================a=====__=====a:
RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
T =
S =
r/B=
Estimate
4.4017E-002
6.4284E-004
1.0000E-005
TYPE CURVE DATA
•
T = 4.40165E-002
S = 6.42844E-004
r/B= 1.00000E-005
Time
1.000E+000
1.413E+000
1.995E+000
2.818E+000
3.981E+000
5.623E+000
7.943E+000
1.122E+001
1.585E+001
2.239E+001
3.162E+0-01
4.467E+001
6.310E+001
8.933E+001
1.259E+002
1.778E+002
2.512E+002'
3.548E+002
5.012E+002
7.079E+002
1.000E+003
Drawdown
2.958E-001
3.940E-001
5.014E-001
6.159E-001
7.357E-001
8.593E-001
9.858E-001
1.114E+000
1.244E+000
1.375E+000
1.507E+000
1.640E+000
1.772E+000
1.905E+000
2.038E+000
2.172E+000
2.305E+000
2.439E+000
2.572E+000
2.706E+000
2.839E+000
Time
1.122E+000
1.585E+000
2;239E+000
3.162E+000
4.467E+000
6.310E+000
8.913E+000
1.259E+001
1.778E+001
Drawdown
3.274E-001
4.289E-001
5.389E-001
6.553E-001
7.765E-001
9.012E-001
1.028E+000
1.158E+000
1.288E+000
2.512E+001 1.419E+000
-3.548E+001--1:551E+000
5.012E+001 1.684E+000
7.079E+001 1.817E+000
1.000E+002 1.950E+000
1.413E+002 2.083E+000
1.995E+002 2.216E+000
2.818E+002 2.350E+000
3.981E+002 2.483E+000
5.623E+002 2.617E+000
7.943E+002 2..750E+000
Time Drawdown
1.259E+000 3.601E-001
1.778E+000 4.647E-001
2.512E+000 5.771E-001
3.548E+000 6.953E-001
5.012E+000 8.178E-001
7.079E+000 9.434E-001
1.000E+001 1.071E+000
1.413E+001 1.201E+000
1.995E+001 1.332E+000
2.818E+001 1.463E+000
3-.A 81 E+ 0 01-1-.-5 95 E+0 0 0
5.623E+001 1.728E+000
7.943E+001 1.861E+000
1.122E+002 1.994E+000
1.585E+002 2.127E+000
2.239E+002 2.261E+000
3.162E+002 2.394E+000
4.467E+002 2.528E+000
6.310E+002 2.661E+000
8.913E+002 2.795E+000

Radian International
Meat:
Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Project Ho.:
650138.0601
Loceuon:
Washington, NC
Pumping' Test OW-20
Drawdown (ft)
100.
10.
1.
0.1
I I 111111 1 I I I
I 1 1 111111 I 1 1 I II11I
10. 100.
Time (min)
I I I 1114-
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1000.
DATA SET:
a.aa.a.t
intern
•OUTFEN TYPE.
L.r.
SOLUTION .ETHOO:
11•ntMIn
TEST DAIE:
ulvr
ZEST NELL:
OSS. NELL:
a -A
ESIIMATE0 PAR/METERS:
. - ..o«n n°nm
• - 0.1003131
▪ f L•<•
TEST DMA:
1.1. MILL:
COS. Vial:
o .... • I•. u

AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 - 0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer-.
coefficients for a variety of aquifer test conditions can'
be estimated by A Q T E S O L V, including the following:
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers,
and leaky aquifers _
o pumping_testsTinjection tests,—reC2ery tests,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design
o Nonlinear least-squares,estimation of aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of -results
_.o -Complete graphical display of results

12/15/98
AQTESOLV RESULTS
Version 1.10
14:11:5:
=====================================_________________________.
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set ow20.dat
Data set title Pumping Test OW-20
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date 11/5/98
Test well PW-1
Obs. well OW-20
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points 47
Pumping rate 0.214
Radius (distance) to obs. well 20
Radius of pumped well casing 0.083
Radius of pumped wellbore 0.25
Partial Penetration Data:
Depth of top of well screen 1
Depth of bottom of well screen 21
Depth of top of obs. well screen 1
Depth of bottom of obs. well screen21
Hyd. conductivity ratio (Kz/Kr) 1
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Hantush (Leaky Aquifer)
_______:
__________=====a==========a==a=====_=======a a==== a==a======= =____________
RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
T =
S =
r/B=
ANALYSIS
residual
weighted
Estimate
4.4765E-002 +/-
3.1534E-004 +/-
1.0000E-005 +/-
Std. Error
1.4800E-003
1.9386E-005
5.0262E+001
OF MODEL RESIDUALS
= calculated - observed
residual = residual * weight

Weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals 47
Number of estimated parameters3
Degreesoffreedom 44
Residual mean 0.0106
Residual standard deviation 0.05344
Residual variance 0.002856
Model Residuals:
Time Observed Calculated Residual Weight
1 0.24 0.141 0.098999 1
1.5 0.33 0.22764 0.10236 1
2 0.39 0.30045 0.089551 1
2.5 0.45 0.36237 0.087629 1
. 3 0.49 0.41599 0.074015 1
4 0.56 0.50524 • 0.054762 1
5 0.62 0.57774 0.042264 1
6 0.66 0.63872 0.021284 1
7 0.71 0.69131 0.018687 1
8 0.75 0.73755 0.012455 1
9 0.78 0.77878 0.0012185 1
10 0.82 0.81599 0.0040063 1
11 0.85 0.8499 0.00010403 1
12 0.87 0.88103 -0.011028 1
13 0.87 0.90981 -0.039808 1
14 0.92 0.93657 -0.016566 . 1
15 0.94 0.96157 -0.021567 1
16 0.97 0.98503 -0.015027 1
18 0.99 1.028 -0.038012 1
20 1 1.0666 -0.066633 1
22 1.03 1.1017 -0.071693 1
24 1.07 1.1338 -0.063795 1
26 1.1 171634 -0.063398 1
28 1.12 1.1909 -0.070864 1
30 1.15 1.2165 -0.06648 1
35 1.21 1.2739 -0.063861 1
40 1.27 1.3237-0.053711 1
50 1.37 1.4073 -0.037271 1
60 1.43 1.4757 -0.045743 1
70 1.52 1.5338 -0.013751 1
80 1.57 1.5841 -0.014074 1
90 1.63 1:6285 0.0014893 1
100 1.68 1.6683 0.011704 1
12a 1.75 1.7372 . 0.01279 1
140 1.82 1.7955 0.024465 1
160 1.87 1.8461 0.023905 1
180 1.92 1.8907 0.029283 1
200 1.96 1.9306 0.02935 1
220 2.01 1.9668 0.043213 1
240 2.04 1.9998 0.040213 1
260 2.08 2.0302 0.049849 1
280 2.12 2.0583 0.06173 1
300 2.14 2.0845 0.055547 1.
330 2.18 2.1206 0.05937 1
360 2.21 2.1537 0.056336 1
420 2.29 2.2122 0.0778 1
480 2.35 2.2629 0.087081 1

========ova====================================================_======
,RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
T =
S =
r/B=
Estimate
4.4765E-002
3.1534E-004
1.0000E-005
«c <cc«<c«««««cc ccccc<c<ccc<cccc<c»»»>»»>»»»»»»»»»»»»»>
TYPE CURVE DATA
T = 4.47646E-002
S = 3.15337E-004
r/B= 1.00000E-005
Time
1.000E+000
1.413E+000
1.995E+000
2.818E+000
3.981E+000
5.623E+000
7.943E+000
1.122E+001
1.585E+001
Drawdown
1.410E-001
2..136E-001
2.998E-001
1. 973E-001
5.037E-001
6.169E-001
7.351E-001
8.570E-001
9.816E-001
Time
1.122E+000
1.585E+000
2:239E+000
3.162E+000
4.467E+000
6.310E+000
8.913E+000
1.259E+001
1.778E+001
2.239E+001 1.108E+000 2.512E+001
3.162E+0011.236E+000 3.548E+001
4.467E+001 1.365E+000 5.012E+001
6.310E+001 1.495E+000 7.079E+001
8.913E+001 1.625E+000 1.000E+002
1.413E+002
1.995E+002
2.818E+002
3.981E+002
5.623E+002
7.943E+002
1.259E+002
1.778E+002
2.512E+002
3:548E+002
5.012E+002
7.079E+002
1.000E+003
1.755E+000
1.886E+000
2.017E+000
2.148E+000
2.279E+000
2.411E+000
2.542E+000
Drawdown
1.635E-001
2.409E-001
3.312E-001
4319E-001
5.408E-001
6.558E-001
7.753E-001
8.982E-001
1.024E+000
1.151E+000
1.279E+000
1.408E+000
1.538E+000
1.668E+000
1.799E+000
1.930E+000
2.061E+000
2.192E+000
2.323E+000
2.454E+000
Time
1.259E+000
1.778E+000
2.512E+000
3.548E+000
5.012E+000
7.079E+000
1.000E+001
1.413E+001
1.995E+001
2.818E+001
3-98tE+001
5.623E+001
7.943E+001
3.122E+002
1.585E+002
2.239E+002
3.162E+002
4.467E+002
6.310E+002
8.913E+002
Drawdown
1.877E-001
2.697E-001
3.637E-001
4.674E-001
5.785E-001
6.952E-001
8.160E-001
9.398E-001
1.066E+000
1.193E+000
1-: 322E+000
1.451E+000
1.581E+000
1.712E+000
1.843E+000
1.973E+000
2.104E+000
2.236E+000
2.367E+000
2.498E+000

Radian International
CI mnt:
Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
ProIecl No.:
650138.0601
Locet Ion:
Washington, NC
Pumping
Test MW-220
10.
0.01
1.
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1
I I III
1 1 1111-1k-
I I IIIIII I I I 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10.
Time
100. 1000.
min)
DATA SET:
Eli Oda
EDIT IF EN TYPE:
Lvov
SOLUI ION ME MOO.
Nwl..n
ZEST DATE:
M/Vle
TEST HELL:
OBS. NELL:
EST !MATE° PEMME TENS:
I - 0.4E5A raeLln
• - 1.O0011.50
NI- I.EW
TEST PAL:
0- 0 as. I.I/.m
. .COI.
• [ - 0:0II It
0-]I I.
tics tall:
MOS. MOIL
.... -]I. I.

««< c «< c ««c «««««««««««c <c»»»»»»»»»» >o»»»»»»»>>>:
AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 - 0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to.
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer.
coefficients for a variety of aquifer test conditions can
be estimated by A Q T E S 0 L V, including the following:
•
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers,
and leaky aquifers
o pumping tests, injection tests, recovery testa,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design."
o Nonlinear least -squares estimation of aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of results
o Complete graphical display of results

« « « « « « « « « c<cc« ce« « « « « cc « » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »»»
AQTESOLV R E S U L T S
Version 1.10
12/15/98
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set mw220.dat
Data Set title Pumping Test MW-220
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date 11/5/98 •
Test well. PW-1
Obs. well MW-220
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points 40
Pumping rate 0.214
Radius (distance) to obs. well 48.5
Radius of pumped well casing 0.083
Radius of pumped wellbore 0.25
Partial Penetration Data:
Depth of top of well screen 1
Depth of bottom of well screen...,21
Depth of -top of obs. well screen 1
Depth of bottom of obs. well screen.. 21
Hy_d. conductivity ratio (Kz/Kr)...... 1
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Hantush (Leaky Aquifer)
14:13:22
=== ====
======__===========va====aaaaaassaas=samaaa=aa==sa====s==========___=====_====_
RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
STATISTICAL. MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate Std. Error
T = 4.5056E-002 +/- 1.7333E-003
S = 3.2553E-004 +/- 1.1315E-005
r/B= 1.0000E-005 +/- 2.5352E+002
ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS
residual = calculated.- observed
weighted residual = residual * weight

Weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals 40
Number of estimated parameters3
Degrees of freedom 37
Residual mean 0.006571
Residual standard deviation 0.03199
Residual variance 0.001023
Model Residuals:
Time
Observed Calculated Residual
Weight
1 0.05 0.0010582 0.048942 1
2 0.08 0.015579 0.064421 1
2.5 0.08 0.028237 0.051763 1
3 0.1 0.04286 0.05714 1
5.5 0.18 0.12342 0.056582 1
6 0.18 0.13911 0.040886 1
7 0.2 0.16935 0.030646 1
8 0.22 0.19796 0.022045 1
10.5 0.28 0.26256 0.017442 1
11 0.29 0.2744 0.015601 1
12 0.31 0.29712 0.012881 1
13 0.32 0.31865 0.0013528 1
14 0.33 0.33909 -0.0090891 1..
15 0.35 0.35854 -0.0085386 1
16 0.36 0.37708 -0.01708 1
18 0.39 0.41173 -0.021735 1
20 0.42 0.44357 -0.023565 1
30 0.56 0.57229-0.012287 1
35.5 0.63 0.62814 0.0018627 1
40 0.67 0.66843 0.0015658 1
50 0.72 0.74512 -0.025117 1
60 0.77 0.80888 -0.038879 1
70 0.83 0.86344 -0.033442 1
80 0.88 0.91113 -0.031125 1
90 0.93 0.95347 -0.023468 1
100 0.98 0.99155 -0.011546 1
120 1 1.0578 -0.057832 1
140 1.14 1.1142 0.025784 1
160 1.17 1.1633 0.0067275 1
1801 1.22 1.2067 0.013311 1
200 1.28 1.2456 0.03437 1
220 1.28 1.2809 -0.00093139 1
240 1.28 1.3132 -0.033216 1
260 1.31 1.343 -0.032959 1
280 1.38 1.3705 0.0094681 1
300 1.41 1.3962 0.013771 1
330 1.45 1.4318 0.01823 1
363 1.51 1.4674 0.042645 1
420 1.56 1.5219 0.038115 1
480 1.59 1.5719 0.018121 1
___=___=============aa=aaaa===============================a=============_: as==.
RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES

=
S =
r/B=
Estimate
4.5056E-002
3.2553E-004
1.0000E-005
TYPE CURVE DATA
1
T = 4.50557E-002
S = 3.25529E-004
r/B= 1.00000E-005
Time
1.000E+000'
1.413E+000
1.995E+000
2.818E+000
3.981E+000
5.623E+000
7.943E+000
1.122E+001
1.585E+001
2.239E+001
3.162E+001
4.467E+001
6.310E+001
8.913E+001
1.259E+002
1.778E+002
2.512E+002
3.548E+002
5.012E+002
7.079E+002
1.000E+003
Drawdown
1.058E-003
4.883E-003
1.547E-002
3.738E'-002
7.417E-002
1.273E-001
1.964E-001
2.795E-001
3.743E-001
4.784E-001_
5.896E-001
7.062E-001
8.266E-001
9.499E-001
1.075E+000
1.202E+000
1.330E+000
1.459E+000
1.588E+000
1.718E+000
1.848E+000
Time
1.122E+000
1.585E+000
2.239E+000
3.162E+000
4.467E+000
6.310E+000
8.913E+000
1.259E+001
1.778E+001
2:512E+001
3.548E+001
5.012E+001
7.079E+001
1.000E+002
1.413E+002
1.995E+002
2.818E+002
3-981E+002
5.623E+002
7.943E+002
Drawdown
1.852E-003
7.433E-003
2.131E-002
4.787E-002
9.005E-002
1.486E-001
2.226E-001
3.099E-001
4.081E-001
5.148E-001
6:280E-001
7.459E-001
8.675E-001
9.915E-001
1.117E+000
1.245E+000
Time
1.259E+000
1.778E+000
2.512E+000
3.548E+000
5.012E+000
7.079E+000
1.000E+001
1.413E+001
1.995E+001
2.818E+001
3.981E+001
5.623E+001
7.943E+001
1.122E+002
1.585E+002
2.239E+002
1.373E+000 3.162E+002
1: 5 0 2 E+0 0 0--- 4.-16 7-E+0 0 2
1.631E+000 6.310E+002
1.761E+000 8.913E+002
Drawdown
3.077E-003
1.090E-002
2.857E-002
6.011E-002
1.078E-001
1.717g-001
2.504E-001
3.416E-001
4.428E-001
5.519E-001
6.668E-001
7.861E-001
9.086E-001
1.033E+000
1.160E+000
1.287E+000
1.416E+000
1 545E+000
1.674E+000
1.804E+000

I.2 Rail -down Tests
I.2.1- Introduction
Bail -down tests were conducted at wells MW-217, MW-219, MW-223, and MW-
231. The objective of the tests was to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the hydrogeologic
unit A at the facility. The test sites were selected based on their locations in different parts of the
facility. A "secondary consideration was each well's location outside any chemical plume, which
allowed water generated during the test to be disposed without treatment.
I.2.2 Bail -down Test Description
All wells tested are screened in hydrogeologic unit A. Instantaneous removal of
water to effect the initial drawdown was performed using an electric -powered peristaltic pump.
Immediately after withdrawal, water -level recovery in each well was measured using an electric
water -level indicator and recorded manually. Measurement continued at regular intervals until
the -water level_recovered.to_withit at east95_percentoequilibriUm. Results of the tests are
discussed in Section I.1.3.2:
I.2.3 Bail -down Test Analysis
This section describes the analytical procedure used to evaluate the data from
each bail -down test and presents the results. Tables and graphs of water -level recovery
measurements utilized in the analysis of each test are included at the end of the discussion.
I.2.3.1 Analytical Procedure
The conceptual model used to analyze each bail -down test is that of an
unconfined aquifer with completely or partially penetrating wells . Governing equations and type
curves are those presented by Bouwer and Rice (1976). Type curves were initially fit to
measured drawdown data by nonlinear least -squares parameter estimation and, subsequently,
matched visually using AQTESOLV software developed by Geraghty and Miller Modeling
la c:\hamilton\washington\csa.rpt (1 V 16198) 1-3

Group (Duffield, 1991). Input to the aquifer model, in addition to the measured water levels,
included initial drawdown (H,); well casing radius (r.); borehole radius (rw); saturated length of
well screen (L); aquifer thickness (b); and height of water in the well. Specific input values for
these parameters ate listed under "Test Data" on the accompanying graphs.
I.2.3.2 Bail -down Test Results
Hydraulic conductivity values calculated for hydrogeologic unit A range from
3.9 x 10'' ft/min (5.7 x 104 ft/day) to 5.1 x 104 ft/min (7.4 x 10'2 ft/day). The range of hydraulic
conductivity values are representative of clay, sandy silt, and clayey sand.
la ehamilton\washington\cu-tpt (12/16/98)
I-4

Radian International
Client:
Hamilton Beach<>Proctor—Silex
Molect No.:
650138.0601
Location:
Washington, NC
MW-217 Ba
it —down Test
Displacement (ft)
10.
0.1
a11111111111IIIIIII
1'
11111'111
11111111111111111I1-
0
0
0
0
0 0
0. 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0. 6.4 12.8 19.2 .25..6 32.
Time (min)
DATA SEA:
Sale,..
AQUIFER TYPE:
L,cai me
SOLUTION METHOD.
asera.s.
TEST DATE:
Ie,YVf
1ESI WELL:
le-a0
OILS. SELL:
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS:
a • I.51a1L0' /Uem
0-O.wM
IESI DATA:
W-00A/I
t - 0.03 II
O.GI It

AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 - 0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to.
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer
coefficients for a variety of aquifer test conditions can
be estimated by A Q T E S 0 L V, including the following:
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers,
and leaky aquifers
o—ptmptng-tests, ction tests recovery tests,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design
o Nonlinear least -squares estimation of aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of results
-o Complete graphical display of results
<C«<<c« « « « « « «« « « « « « «c« « » » »» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »

12/15/98
A Q T E S O L V RESULTS
Version 1.10
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set mw217.dat
Data set title MW-217 Bail -down Test
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date • 10/04/98
Test well MW-217
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points 28
Radius of' well casing 0.02
Radius of well 0.083
Aquifer saturated thickness 4.42
Well screen length 4.42
Static height of water• in well 4.42
Log(Re/Rw) 3.045
A, B, C 0.000, 0.000, 2.754
__________
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Bouwer-Rice (Unconfined-Aquifer-Siug-Test)
13:50:2
_________________________________________=====as=====_________________________
RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate Std. Error.
K = 1.5276E-005 +/- 8.6034E-007
y0 = 4.3333E+000 +/- 1.2807E-001
ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS
residual = calculated - observed
weighted residual.= residual * weight
Weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals 28
Number of estimated parameters2
Degrees of freedom 26
Residual mean -0.05019
Residual standard deviation 0.2284

Radian International
C,tant:
Hamilton Beach<>Proctor—Silex
Project No.:
650138.0601
Luca ton:
Washington, NC
MW-219 B
-down Test
Displacement (ft)
10.
1.
0.1
111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-
0
0 0
0
0.01 IIIIIIIIII111111111I11111111 IIIIIIII11I111 11111a
0. 6.4 12.8 19.2 25.6 32.
Time (min)
DATA SET:
ultvu
AQUIFER TYPE:
untie t/i d
SOLUTION METHOD:
mer-lift.
TEST DATE:
IOIWY
TEST WELL:
r-au
OBS. WELL:
ESTIMATED PARAMETERS
a - 3..)]I- S nn.a
Io- Lis so
ZEST DATA:
.W • t Y It
re - 0.02 It
re .• 0.00.1 It
- 3.- It
• • Of It
a• )O[I1

Residual variance 0.05216
Model Residuals:
Time Observed Calculated - Residual
Weight
0.5 3.84 4.0996 -0.25959 1
1 - 3.64 3.8785 -0.23849 1
1.5 3.49 3.6693 -0.17931 1
2 3.36 3.4714 -0.11142 1
2.5 3.25 3.2842 -0.034197 1
3 3.13 3.1071 0.022927 1
3.5 3.01 2.9395 0.070498 1
4 2.93 2.781 0.14903 '1
4.5 2.8 2.631 0.16902 1
5 2.69 2.4891 0.20091 1
5.5 2.61 2.3548 0.25515 1
6 2.5 2.2278 0.27215 1
7 2.26 1.994 0.26598 1
8 2.04 1.7847 0.25526 1
9 1.8 1.5974 0.20258 1
10 1.57 1.4298 0.14024 1
11 1.32 1.2797 0.0403 1
12 1.08 1.1454 -0.065388 1
14 0.7 0.91758 -0.21758 1
16 0.38 0.73507 -0.35507 1
18 0.19 0.58887 -0.39887 1
20 0.1 0.47175 -0.37175 1
22 0.06 0.37792 -0.31792 1
24 0.04 .0.30275 -0.26275 1
26 0.03 0.24254 -0.21254 - 1
28 0.02 0.1943 -0.1743 1
30 0.02 0.15565 -0.13565 1
32 0.01 0.12469 -0.11469 1
_________
RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate
K = 1.5276E-005
y0 = 4.3333E+000
TYPE CURVE DATA
K = 1.52764E-005
y0 = 4.33329E+000
Time Drawdown Time Drawdown Time Drawdown
0.000E+000 4.333E+000 3.200E+001 1.247E-001

r-�
AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 - 0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to.
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer
coefficients for a variety of aquifer test conditions can
be estimated by A Q T E S O L V, including the following:.
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers,
and leaky aquifers
o pumping tests, injection tests, recovery tests,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design
o Nonlinear least -squares estimation of aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of results
o Complete graphical display of results

AQTESOLV RESULTS
Version 1.10
12/15/98 14:02:1
____________________________=__===========a===========a=====___________________
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set mw219.dat
Data set title MW-219 Bail -down Test
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date 10/04/98
Test well MW-219
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points' 28
Radius of well casing 0.02
Radius of well 0.083
Aquifer saturated thickness 3.86
Well screen length 3.86
Static height of water in well 3.86
Log(Re/Rw) 2.936
A, B, C 0.000, 0.000, 2.519
_________
______ __= ======
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Bouwer-Rice (Unconfi g—Test-)
____________________=========a=====a======a=a=====__===========_
RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate Std. Error.
K = 3.1333E-005 +/- 8.3575E-007
y0 = 3.7101E+000 +/- 6.2539E-002
ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS
residual = calculated - observed
weighted residual = residual * weight
Weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals 28-
Number of estimated parameters2
Degrees of freedom 26
Residual mean 0.00792
Residual standard deviation 0.08102

Residual variance 0.006564
Model Residuals:
Time Observed Calculated Residual
Weight
0.5 3.22 3.3469 -0.12694 1
1 3.01 3.0194 -0.0093585 1
1.5 2.79 2.7238 0.066159 1
2 2.47 2.4572 0.012753 1
2.5 2.3 2.2167 0.083254 1
3 2.08 1.9998 0.080216 1
3.5 2.04 1.8041 0.23594 1
4 1.47 1.6275 -0.15749 1.
4.5 1.46 1.4682 -0.008197 1
5 1.37 1.3245 0.045502 1
5.5 1.06 1.1949 -0.13486 1
6 1.04 1.0779 -0.037918 1
7 0.81 0.87724 -0.067243 1
8 0.63 0.71393 -0.083927 1
9 0.52 0.58102 -0.061016 1
10 0.45 0.47285 -0.022849 1
11 0.39 0.38482 0.005181 1
12 0.35 0.31318 0.036822 1
14 0.27 0.20742 0.062576 1
16 0.2 0.13738 0.062619 1
18 0.15 0.09099 0.05901 1
20 0.1 0.060265 0.039735 1
22 0.08 0.039915 0.040085 1
24 0.06 0.026436 0.033564 1
26 0.04 0.017509 0.022491 1
28 0.04 0.011597 0.028403 1
30 0.02 0.0076808 0.012319 1
32 0.01 0.0050871 0.0049129 1
RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate
K = 3.1333E-005
y0 = 3.7101E+000
TYPE CURVE DATA
K = 3.13328E-005
y0 = 3.71006E+000
Time Drawdown Time Drawdown Time Drawdown
0.000E+000 3.710E+000 3.200E+001 5.087E-003

Radian
International
Client: Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
PEEL" NEL:
650138.0.601
Location: Washington, NC
•
MW-223 Bail
—down Test
Displacement (ft)
p r
DATA SEC
motet a.I
12T15/91 •
J11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111L
IIIII
—
1OUIFEN TYPE:
Nconr wa
SOLUTION MEIMOO:
s.rrrlc.
LEST DATE:
a0/Wi
TEST WELL:
OBS. WELL:
to -no
Di
'
•
•-uI
•
•
•
$
•
Q
—
III 1111II III' IIIII I I I III 1111
_
--
_
_
0
O O O
II-I1111IIIII
ESTIMATED PAMAMETEMS:
I(- a.ImtWin .Ea n
re- 6u]rt
\.
TEST DATA:
N - .. YY It
rc-a.OZII
- 0.OYI rI
b.a) II
e - a.an
•
2.4 4.8 i.2
Time (min)
9..6 12.

AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
.From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 -'0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer
coefficients for a variety of aquifer test conditions can
be estimated by A Q,T E S 0 L V , including the following:
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers,
and leaky aquifers
o putivisly teats, i-nj-ect-ion—tests,—recovery tests,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design
o Nonlinear least -squares estimation of. aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of results
--o Complete graphical display of results

12/15/98
==__==
AQTESOLV RESULTS
Version 1.10
14:03:45
===========================_=_____==__=___===================_____=_:
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set mw223.dat
Data set title MW-223 Bail -down Test
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date 10/04/98
Test well MW-223
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points 18
Radius of well casing 0.02
Radius of well 0.083
Aquifer saturated thickness 5.47
Well screen length 5.47
Static height of water in well 5.47
Log(Re/Rw) 3.214
A, B, C 0.000, 0.000, 3.195
==__======== =_=_=_==__
ANALYTICAL METHOD
___'____====_=
Bouwer-Rice (Unconfined Aquifers ug Teat
RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate Std. Error
K = 5.1014E-005 +/- 1.6398E-006
y0 = _4.7431E+000 +/- 1.1671E-001
ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS
residual = calculrated - observed
weighted residual = residual • weight
Weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals 18
Number of estimated parameters2
Degrees of freedom 16
Residual mean 0.04066
Residual standard deviation 0.09684
=_=___==_=____=_

Residual variance 0.009377
Model Residuals:
Time
Observed Calculated Residual
Weight
0.5 3.87 3.8177 . 0.05229 1
1 - 3.08 3.0729 0.0071428 1
1.5 2.53 2.4733 0.056671 1
2 1.91 1.9908 -0.080771 1
2.5 1.5 1.6024 -0.10236 1
3 1.22 1.2897 -0.069734 1
3.5 0.97 1.0381 -0.068101 1
4 0.81 0.83556 -0.025563 1
4.5 0.68 0.67254 0.007459 1
5 0.58 0.54133 0.038675 1
5.5 0.49 0.43571 0.05429 1
6 0.43 0.3507 0.079299 1
7 0.32 0.2272 0.092796 1
8 0.26 0.1472 0.1128 1
9 0.21 0.095362 0.11464 1
10 0.2 0.061781 0.13822 1
11 0.2 0.040025 0.15997 1
12 0.19 0.025931 0.16407 . 1
==aa=========aasaaaa======aa=====a======a=====a==a========a=========a==a====a==
RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate
K = 5.1014E-005
y0 = 4.7431E+000
c c c c c c ««c c c c c c «c «c <c ««c c c c c c««c c»»»»»»»»»»»> i»»»»»»»>
TYPE CURVE DATA
K = 5.10138E-005
y0 = 4.74311E+000
Time Drawdown Time Drawdown Time • Drawdown
0.000E+000 4.743E+000 1.200E+001 2.593E-002

Radian International
CI tent:
Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Si1ex
Protect no.:
650138.0601
Local Ton:
Washington, NC
MW-231 B ii1—down Test .
Displacement (ft)
1.
Iflllllllllllllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
0.1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
0. 12. 24. 36. 48. 60.
Time (min)
DATA SET:
.i)1.Y1
32/1.0JOS
£OuIfER TYPE:
Lan./ IMI
Saul DST RETn00:.
TEST DATE:
Waves
LEST WELL:
y-61,
o5. WELL:
ESTIW TEO P*RIWE IERS:
14 - 3.6322E-0I II/.to
p - 6.I611 11
IESI DATA:
oti It
- 0.01It
- 1.67 It
.- let It
n-167 It

AQTESOLV
A Program for
Automatic Estimation of Aquifer Coefficients
From Aquifer Test Data
By:
Glenn M. Duffield
and
James 0. Rumbaugh, III
Geraghty & Miller Modeling Group
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 301
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 476 - 0335
AQTESOLV is a user-friendly program designed to
analyze data from aquifer tests automatically. Aquifer..
coefficients for a variety of aquifer test conditions can
be estimated by A Q T E S 0 L V, including the following:
o confined aquifers, unconfined aquifers, ,
and leaky aquifers
o—pullyiatg-test9,—indection-tests .-ecovery-tests,
and slug tests
Features:
o Interactive, menu -driven program design
o Nonlinear least -squares estimation of aquifer coefficients
o Statistical analysis of results
-o Complete graphical display of results

12/15/98
AQTESOLV RESULTS
Version 1.10
14:07:5
_====__==============================s=========-=----a======
TEST DESCRIPTION
Data set mw231.dat
Data set title MW-231 Bail -down Test
Company Radian International
Project 650138.0601
Client Hamilton Beach<>Proctor-Silex
Location Washington, NC
Test date 10/04/98
Test well MW-231
Knowns and Constants:
No. of data points 41
Radius of well casing 0.02
Radius of well 0.083
Aquifer saturated thickness 3.67
Well screen length 3.67
Static height of water in well 3.67
Log(Re/Rw) 2.894
A, B, C 0.000, 0.000, 2.440
===s======a========s==
ANALYTICAL METHOD
Bouwer-Rice (Unconfrned Agntfer-SlugTest)
==___=_==_
====ass======================a========s=saes===sass========a=====_______===___:
RESULTS FROM STATISTICAL CURVE MATCHING
•
STATISTICAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES.
Estimate Std. Error
K = 3.9322E-007 +/- 3.5856E-008
y0 = 7.9715E-001 +/- 5.2288E-003
ANALYSIS OF MODEL RESIDUALS
residual = calculated - observed
weighted residual a residual * weight
Weighted Residual Statistics:
Number of residuals_ 41
Number of estimated parameters2
Degrees of freedom 39
Residual mean 1.024E-005
Residual standard deviation 6.02034

Residual variance 0.0004135
Model Residuals:
Time Observed Calculated Residual
=
Weight
0.5 0.88 0.79616 0.083845 1
1 0.85 0.79516 0.054837 1
1.5 0.82 0.79417 0.025827 1
2 0.82 0.79318 0.026816 1
2.5 0.79 0.7922 -0.0021955 1
3 0.79 0.79121 -0.0012086 1
3.5 0.79 0.79022 -0.00022301 1
4 0.78 0.78924 -0.0092386 1
4.5 0.78 0.78826 -0.0082555 1
5 0.77 0.78727 -0.017274 1
6 0.77 0.78531. -0.015313 1
7 0.77 0.78336 .-0.013358 1
8 0.77 0.78141 -0.011408 1
9 0.77 0.77946 -0.009462 1
10 0.77 0.77752 -0.0075213 1
11 0.76 0.77559 -0.015585 1
12 0.76 0.77365 -0.013654 1
14 0.75 0.76981 -0.019807 1
16 0.75 0.76598 -0.015978 1
18 Q.74 0.76217 -0.022168 1
20 0.74 0.75838 -0.018378 1
22 0.74 0.75461 -0.014606 1
24 0.74 0.75085 -0.010853 1
26 0.74 0.74712 -0.0071185 1
28 0.73 0.7434 -0.013403 1
30 0.73 0.73971 -0.0097054 1
32 0.73 0.73603 -0.0060265 1
34 0.73 0.73237-0.0023658 1
36 0.73 0.72812 0.OU r2766 1
38 0.72 0.7251 -0.0050991 .1
40 0.72 0.72149 -0.0014928 1
42 0.72 0.7179 0.0020955 1
44 0.72 0.71433 0.005666 1
46 0.71 0.71078 -0.00078128 1
48 0.71 0.70725 0.0027538 1
50 0.71 0.70373 0.0062713 1
52 0.71 0.70023 0.0097713 1
54 0.71 0.69675 0.013254 1
56 0.71 0.69328 0.016719 1
58- 0.7 0.68983 0.010167 - 1
60 0.7 0.6864 0.013598 1
RESULTS FROM VISUAL CURVE MATCHING.
VISUAL MATCH PARAMETER ESTIMATES
Estimate
K = 3.9322E-007
y0 = 7.9715E-001

«««<- ««««««««««««««.<.:<. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»-»
TYPE CORVE DTa
K = 3.93232E-007
y0 = 7.977.48E-001
Time Drawdown ,Time Drawduwn Time Drawdown
0 000E+00^ 7 971E-001 6.000E+001 6.864E-001

ATTACHMENT H

4
Pilot -Scale Test Monitoring
Newly constructed 1-inch diameter monitoring wells will be�uti ized to
measure to effectiveness of the treatment during the pilot applicatio i1Q ne monitoring
wells will be ib ed in both hydrogeologic units. Three wells be placed upgradient of
the injection point , ee downgradient of the injje 3 n points, and three adjacent to the
injection points in both b its A and B. T -swells will be sampled before, during, and
after the pilot test. Samples wi b- . alyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, CO2, Ethane, and
Methane. Iri addition, par. .• - e dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity,.
temperature, and oxi.: ion -reduction potent.. ORP) will be recorded during the
application pr. • - ss to gauge the progress of reaction n�the treatment area. The on -site
activiti- .. sociated with the pilot -scale test will be conductZ;d,for a period of
a
roximately eight weeks.
rs suc

ATTACHMENT K

Table 5-3
Monitoring Well Construction Data
Hamilton BeachOProctor-Silex, Washington, North Carolina
Well No.
installation Date
Top of Casing
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
Total Depth
(ft. bks)
Screen Interval
(ft. bg)
Filler Pack
(ft. bgs)
Bentonite Seal
(ft. bgs)
Grout Seal
(ft. bgs)
MW-2015
9/10/92
29.74
9.9
7.9-9.9
5-9.9
2.9-5
0-2.9
MW-201D
9/10/92
29.71
45'
43-45
14-45
2.9-14
0-2.9
MW-202
9/10/92
34.98
1t
4-14
3.5-14
2-3.5
0-2
MW-203
9/11/92
32.16
I
5-15 •
4-15
2-4
0-2
MW-204
9/11/92
32.65
ISJJI
5-15
4-15
2-4
0-2
MW-205
9/11/92
• 31.75
l5
5-15
4-15
1.3-4
0-1.3
MW-206
9/11/92
28.79
13.5
3.6-13.6
3.1-13.6
0.7-3.1
0-0.7
MW-207
11/4/92
33.78
10.4
5.4-10.4
4.2-10.4
1.2-4.2
0-1.2
MW-208
11/4/92
32.11
9.i
4.7-9.7
4-9.7
1.2-4
0- 1.2
MW-209
1/14/98
32.93
26
16.4-26.4
14-26.4
13- 14
0- 13
MW-210
1/14/98
32.49
2
12-20
11-20
9.3-11
0-9.3
MW-211
1/14/98
31.75
7.5
3-7.5
2.5-7.5
1.5-2.5
0-1.5
MW-212
1/14/98
28.45
20
12-20
11-20
10-11
0-10
MW-213
1/14/98
28.44
74
3-7.5
2.5-7.5
1.5-2.5
0-1.5
MW-214
1/16/98
27.93
2I
14.5-21
13.5-21
12.5-115
0-12.5
MW-215
1/16/98
28.06
14
8.5-10
8-10
7-8
0-7
MW-216
5/5/98
32.82
1
35
26 - 35
25 - 35
24 - 25
0 - 24
MW-217
5/5/98
32.75
1
10
• 4-10
3-10
2-3
0-2
la c:lhamiltim\washPngluWcsa-ryl (1/20/99)

Table 5-3 (Continued)
Well No.
Installation Date
Top of Casing
Elevation
(ft. above MSL)
TotalDepth
(MI
bgs)
Screen Interval
(ft. bgs)
Filter Pack
(ft. bgs)
Bentonite Seal
(ft. bgs)
Grout Seal
(It. bgs)
M W-218
5/6/98
31.55
B7
28 - 37
27 - 37 •
26 - 27
0 - 26
MW-2I9 1
5/5/98
.31.83
0
4 - 10
3 - 10
2 - 3
0 - 2
MW-220
5/5/98
31.50
34
25 - 34
24 - 34
23 - 24
0 — 23
MW2221
5/5/98
31.39 ,
10
4-10
3-10
2-3
0-2
MW-222
5/6/98
35.11
40
31 -40
30 - 40
29 - 30
0 - 29
MW-223
5/6/98,
35.15
10
4- 10
3- 10
2- 3
0- 2
MW-224
11/13/98
33.43
134
25 - 34
24 - 34
23 - 24
0 - 23
MW-225
11/13/98
,'33.43
10
4-10
3-10
2-3
0-2
MW-226
9/30/98
28.46
75
70 - 75
69 - 75
67 - 69
0 - 67
MW-227
10/1/98
28.47
25.5
20.5 - 25.5
19.5 - 25 5
17.5 - 19.5
0 - 17.5
MW-228
9/23/98
28.71
10
3 - 10
2 - 10
1 - 2
0 - 1
MW-229
10/26/98
30.44
10
4- 10
3- 10
2- 3
0- 2
MW-230
10/26/98
33.47
14
8 - 14
_ 7 - 14
5 - 7
0 - 5
M W-231
10/26/98
31.94
10
4- 10
3- 10
2- 3
0- 2
PW-I
9/24/98
31.97
35
15-35
13.5-35
11-13.5
0-11
OW-10
10/26/98
31.27
30
18 - 30
16 - 30
14 - 16
0 - 14
OW-20
10/26/98
31.71
30
18 - 30
17 - 30
15 - 17
0 - 15
Monitoring wells 201 through 208 installed by Engineering Tec onics, .A. Monitoring well 206 was closed by grouting on 9/23/98.
Monitoring wells 209 through 215 installed by Groundwater Managem nt Associates, Inc.
Monitoring wells 216 through 223 installed by Radian Mobile Feld Services.
Monitoring wells 226 through 228 and pumping well PW-1 installed by Parratt Wolff, Incl.
Monitoring wells 224, 225, and 229 through 231, and observation wells OW-10 and OW-20 installed by Probe Technology, Inc.
la c \hamilton\washingtonksa-spl (I/20/99)

__I
4
1
DPT Rig
: 7:
'1
PSI Guage
Q
Control Valve
Pump
Trailer
Fe/Guar
Slurry
Infiltrate
U
Injection Ports
Injedtion Schematic
Zero—Valent Iron and a Carbon Source
C:\Injection

ATTACHMENT N

SITE LOCATION
Figure r 2-1. Topographic Map
Hamilton Beach $ Proctor—Silex, Inc.

C \NHVSNSSTC-GBJUN9B-1115
se
PLANT BUILDING
Parking
Cua d House
Former Fuel AS
(removed)
Former Solvent AST
(removed),
Petroleum ASTs (diked)
Shed
Hazardous Materials
Storage Shed
Former IPA/
Noptho AST
Employee
Parking
Pump House
Hazardous Wosle
Storage Shed
LPG AST
Landlarming Area
D
rBuilding
fl_ Rood and/or Parking Area
ZT
— • — Property Line
- Fenceline
t Ditch
O Water Tank
Cooling Tower
m Translormers
AST Aboveground Storoge Tank
UST Underground Storage lank
200
200
SCALE IN FEET
As srawn
momma
RADIAN iinniAT101ML
r
rse
.evc
mouseFp✓•jeap
2-3
irrc 11Nivmse some waaw-sr. c.
6501340001 I SOL T0

A
/
(MW-201S
°MW-201D
C •
—2
1>
/
•/Mw-222
' A W 223
2
i'I :Jl1 liu0 I iINI.
YW-207
MW-206
• MW-215
`;I 15.16
MW-21 { •
I
'FPA
I YW-203,1
it
l
YW+221.
MW-2
.MW-209
w-208
1/111-226 60V72 2♦
lW-213
l ' • MW-217 1•W-204
MW-216l •MW-219 1
MW_a .MW-210 YW-218 ->
W-228
YW 227
—220
MW-225
YW-224
200
0
YW-230
—231
SCALE IN FEET
LE. ND
o Monitoring Web
Nolo:
Well YW-206 was properly
closed in October 1998.
AS vlwn ,x Ixccee `r s-2. Iscdrn d
200'P"
wr
err.. 1511 IIR^'s' - Ando a sr S.Y.. Y.
S]e1Y 0401 I Lana
RADIAN MYliW 70tMll"vc
Io

D\ HBPS \ UNITA- AREA \ 17 JUN99
•
• ..
•
200 .. 0
200
SCALE IN FEET
LEUND
+ Monitoring Well Location
• Groundwater Screening Location
[74 Remediation with
Chemical Oxidization
flRemedialion with Zero—Volence
Iron and a Carbon Source
X Zero —Valence Iron and a Carbon
Source Pilot —Scale Testing
Injection Location
A Chemical Oxidation Pilot —Scale
Testing Injection Location
(Groundwater)
* Chemical Oxidation Pilot —Scale
Testing Injection Location
(Unsaturated Soil)
AS SHOWN
IIRADIAN INTEAMIONAL
I7JUN99
Incurs 5-5. Und A
Grocaloccor R•mcoalcan &wary
hanulon Babe Proctor Sen. lac.
650738.0'701 1.187-51.11Th

HBPS\UNITB-AREA\17JUN99
..7
' I
L
•
'AN —21 7
200 0 200
SCALE IN FEET
EiEND
± Monitoring Well Locotion
• Groundwater Screening Location
flRemediation with Zero —Valence
Iron and a Carbon Source
vegg Zero —Valence Iron and a Carbon
Source Pilot —Scale Testing
Injection Location — 6 Points on
8 Centers
AS SH
RADIAN
••••idasia..
TSH
MUM
FlUre 5-6. UM B
Groundwater Rensdiaton Scermno
Hamilton Barb6 Prtctor Slag. Inc.
m..=
650138.0701 1.I B-S00.1 0

i •
D\NIPS\DE-SC CT 23DEC9Y
ei
W-222/22
200
NW-216/219
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
.YW-209 Monitoring Well
oC0 Groundwater Screening
Location
�A s�rq ..r .N
"...
rSn
.. s->.
iw[cce Don SSecoc. t«mo.s
i�occse�„w a„ce. l+ww-5.....
mJMO9L. .....
`' aoneaoel I Of -SECT I 0

D.\ HOPS \UNIT A\1SDCC•Q9
j / ND
`/
_
ND•
/ ..- .. C •
'ND
• NO
I'LANI R frii.iMc; 1-1
303,000-\
MW- 228
173,000-, \
Mw 2 I5-'
(,I • Y 1.
ND
ND
7
*NO MW
ND
c8
-ND
w- 208
NO
`G5
20.700
ILj.T.09
M'8-:•19
Mw-21 53-----'/'CI4
±0.1¢7 J ND
125
200
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
j Monitoring well Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
• Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dotes)
i— Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 200 ug/L
AS SHOWN
I
RANI N161HAllO AL
Naar
- 1
lsn
MIMES •at••. •NA o•uu.a
rein a-e
aa0ta•0•ot
awe
0

5DCC91398
itt
•• •- -• -.•
.... •
°ND
'CV "" 41.1W
ND
1 AN I Hi III.INNt;
• _
•'• WIN -214
NO -
- .
tfijl
• -.
/
/4 I
ND
I a. +LIN 212
140
LON • 21tf t I
") ND *ND
I c No
to : 4
ND
LEGEND
4- Monitoring Well Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Doles)
t- Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 200 ugil.
11.ree 5-0
200 290 AS sown ' 20C/EC9 *imamate Otebtution
nli laDIC964.14i:n leice•Peoctort.
IIRACW4ItalAnOtIAL nik ram„.
SCALE IN FEET 00130 0•01 0

SOUTHWEST
0
30
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0-
HIPS ‘vSMIIGTDA1CA-DD V 1aO!
IMW-217
MW-216
(offset 20'
to NW)
MW-215
MW-214
(Offset 40' NORTHEAST
to SE) D'
IMW,2091
(Offset
to SE)5 I C-6 I MW-221
-21 1 MW-220
10.0.
(Offset 60'
to SW)
MW-22
MW-227
MW-226
3.0
35.0
11111111
1 I 1
.rr
T. 1t11
1I(Lq,1 1 I 1 1 1
aril
75.01 1 '
26.0
100
n
25.0
0 100
10
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0
10
VERTICAL SCALE
(ND)
J FGEND
1 I Location Number
Ground Surface
3.0 Top of Screen Depth
7.0 Do11om of Screen Depth
— Water Level Elevation
Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 200 ug/L
•,960) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Nol Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand, Fine Sand,
and Silty Sond
Loner permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sandy
Sill, Silt, and Clay
Shell Limestone Deposits
...., nr+. 5-10
n.ltuto
A''aNATIONAL Tam-im•• "�oi�,1r-Inc1�heo.ow. 0-0'
■ °='""°° 00120001 J 1 m � 0

NORTHWEST
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5 —
0 —
— 10 —
— 20 —
— 25
3.0
7.0
LIW-223
LIW-2 2
4.0
(NO)
10.0
31.0
(ND)
34,9,
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
_IC— Water Level Elevation
10.0
15.0
4941
28.9 ND
32.0
(960)
(ND)
LEGEND
Contour Line Indicates
21 Standard of 200 ug/L
Reported concentration
M ug/L
Not Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand. Fine Sand.
and Silty Sand
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand. Sandy
Silt. Silt. and Clay
•
Shell Limestone Deposits
(Offset 70'
to NE
(011set 50'
to NE)
lAW-219
lAW —218
SOUTHEAST
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10
VERTICAL. SCALE
. riga 5-11
300(
Approx.:me. Distrabsuon
iMM eM
1150135 0401 la -a

°ND
--1/111.4
do'
•
z
I tANI Lit/II
27,000 L,
24.100
•
• •
1.4W • '2 Er.••••
4.3Q
ND .11
87 •
•
jir
MW
NO
32.1
c.•:"
+ IflJ
vi
1 50
•
11.600
•iL‘
t , tin I
5.17
ma
108 •
:1 ND
ND
200
0
200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
f Monitoring Well Location end
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
• Groundwater Screening Locolion
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dates)
4*Th Contour Line Indicoles
2L Standard ol 700 ug/L
_J
IIIRCZ1:Cc
r4a5-s12
AS NC osnas Itrp"Ctk
26frU
S
MANMESAOALnG Moanr:I74_011110601 1
it
_swan

D \MBPS . LIN}T A\13DCC999B
/
/
C .ND
/ NO
-
.- / ilih
_
ND
tau
t ND
•
1.620
.
NO
ILIA I
:<n. 1
•N01 1• ( 1
... l'ww :in ti.
ti ,a . ,.1
ND
2.56
200
:r
.1 EGFNQ
} 'Monitoring Well Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dates)
r\ Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 700 ug/L
0 200 .r •S�Iro�wll� • Y !so[cse�W or.4s�r• 5-.10bAow,
151 %NM ...-dubaou. w una •
RADIAN MFAW101W 8'•g •—tr•' t. ..
SCALE 1N FEET uim+irainier ...... G501380001 •_po. 1
0

SOUTHWEST
30 —
25 —
20-
-
15 —
10 —
5 —
0 —
— 10 —
—15 —
—20 —
— 25 —
tr,
Trna
25.0
35.0
(Offset 20'
FEH 414
to NW)
(108)
(bout so'
to SW
Offset 40'
to SE)
MW— 09
(Offset 45
to SE
NI
12 Vas
24.1100 ) (.71D)
9,7
!CI0
20.5
(4.620)
25.5
lAW-221
25.0
•340
100 0 ' 100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 -1
0 •
VERTICAL SCALE
NORTHEAST
0'
(ND)
LEGEND
- Location Number
3.0
7.0
Ground Surface
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 700 ug/L
(960) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Not Detected
•
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand. Fine Sand.
and Silty Sand
Lower permeability deposits
ifICILICIalg Clayey Sand. Sondy
Silt. Silt. and Cloy
FMShell Limestone Deposits
aupwarffERNAnotia AricH Sot_ csesztf.1 war" D:Or
Sae
AS
2111[Clair Appewriant"rla 50.3-11:adien
450138 0601 0CA-00 0

NORTHWEST
E
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
-10 —
-15 —
-20 -
-25 —
MW-223
MW-222
EMI
4.0
(ND)
10.01-
10.0
15.0
(ND)
(Offset 70'
to NE)
LIW-2 8
MW-227
MW-226
3.0
(24,100T
209
31.0 -
3.0
7.0
(NO)
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
lop o1 Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
32.0
(960)
(ND)
isseatp
Contour Line indicates
2L Standard of 700 ug/L
Reported concentration
in ug/L
Not Detected
•
10.0.
(011sel 50'
to NE)
uW-214
MW-212
3.0
219
MW-218
3.0
100
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand, Fine Sand,
and Silty Sand
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sondy
Silt, Silt, and Cloy.
Shell Limestone Deposits
20.5
(4,620)O
25.5
(2.56
20.0
ND)
100
SOUTHEAST
0
ioo
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0
10
VERTICAL SCALE
I 1
t7b.�
r1 it
.5
Isn
.RAONN INTERKal10fdAL BVG
)e0FC9e nq,u. a
ppw+rol. O.aeu-IO
N Ceq 1.1-4W,,.Mnm.. I-C
actress of mn�fjwne
I301I00.U1 f1L9-Lr 0

I
eND
0
u
a
11
i
a
i
a
a
1
a
y
°ND
e 1.. ..-..�i �_. _..
NO
('t ANI F1 ill (IINI 2.700 •
2 ,808'0Y 2
2,0
ND
1.1Y1
ND
I .t415I r' I .
:,i 1'
M'N- 111 / , ND
ND
I- I
@J
1 l:.1 : .' ND
C7
°ND M
1 Mv:
ND
200
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
IF. ND
+ Monitoring Well Location and
Reported Concenlrolion in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
• Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dates)
Contour Line Indicoles Estimated
Duanlitotion Limit of 5 ug/L
I
1
rpm s-u
AS SHOWN it xeo[cse y/�pypwv.MY�Y!s �b ,e,.,.,
e tLl ]NI[C'YI�r�t.tsn e M ail
•Fe9u. F[
RiwN11141 tNMMML
MWi9L 7�
!'.al]00WI guile-;CII0

A
r
a
0
W
n
4
a
2
a
/
•ND
/ /
.ND
./ NO
ND
ND
• NN -ill
I
ND
111
•ND
1Y-idJ
ND
810
•• Ia
ND
ND
1
.21 { • t
..1)'(. 4n._. It •' ND
•N
IIP
ND
200
0
SCALE IN FEET
200
Monitoring Well
ellLocation and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dates)
T Trace Concentration
r\ Contour Line Indicates Estimated
Ouanlitation Limit of 5 ug/L
J
As
TSH
IIIRADII • pINQY11I04.4 " g
%otcaa
-"' rya s-O.
aboAson
;WCw• �LSI •
Nkra99u •..▪ a..hsry Si.
06MM99
•]91!•0Ea1 e-IU1-O

SOUTHWEST
D
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5-
0—
—5 —
— 10 —
— 15 -
- 20 —
— 25 —
uw-217
NW-216
(Offset 6)0'
(Offset 20' IYto SYW8
to NW) NW-227
uW-226
FSiti
(Offset 40'
to SE)
JIW-2091
(Oto SE)et 5 I c-e
HAY —20{I
uW-221
1IW-220
NORTHEAST
D'
3.0
25.0
(ND)
75.0
(ND)
21.0-
20.5
(e10)
25.5
(140)
6.4
26.0
1 11
�liri r �1 ill l
OIQ
75.0
100
25.0
1 (ND)
0 100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
a
VERTICAL SCALE
LEGEND
—1 I Location Number
3.0 I-
7.0
Ground Surface
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
Contour Line Indicates
Estimated Ouantitalion
Limit of 5 ug/L
Doshed Line Indicates
that Plume is 011set
from Section Shown
060) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Not Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand. Fine Sond,
and Silly Sond
Loser permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand. Sandy
Silt. Sill, and Gay
Shell Limestone Deposits
AS SNOW
10
Appl..p
Ail
NOCae9tDOCCN ,.rtl..InichbareMM.. 11-b
.-�•eWlq yypl� IQ -OD • a
n

Y
NORTHWEST
30 —
25
20
15 —
10 —
5-
- 10 -
- 15 —
- 20 —
- 25 —
MW-223
MW-22
0
(NO)
10.0
31.0 -
(ND)
2
32
C-
3.0
7.0
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
(Offset 70'
to NE)
MW-2 8
MW-227
MW-226
3.0
LEGEND
Contour Line Indicotes
Estimated Ouantilotion
Limit o1 5 ug/L
(960) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Not Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sond, Fine Sond,
and Silty Sand
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sond. Sandy
Sill, Silt, and Cloy
Shell Limestone Deposits 1 I J' T
I
176
(O11set 50'
to NE)
�'IF7
3.0
W-219
MW-218
3.0
28.0 -
37.0
(ND)
100
SOUTHEAST
•
0 100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE
As 5110wn
Tooccsen rqur. 0-19
AP1140 .not. a.aa.uon
Ism ]cacao d b t o.i ..L-C
.R11WVa INDLRHATICIPML epc OS„, - •
-- U013e 0601 12-111 0

co
L.
,• NO
°NO
•
ND
—11; in e•I
10.000
i)
3.330
ND
•
NO ND •
1
ND
200 0
LEGEND
Monitoring WeH Location ond
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
I I
Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 70 ug/L
200
SCALE IN FEET
Groundwater Screening Locabon
ond Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Doles)
T Troce Concentration
AS
•
ERA01,4,11/11EPtallOttAL •s's
rilOCC90
%DEC
0814199
-.Didliate""r•Cinathil•A-20
DUnita".5 ill Ufa A
Beach Prtclat S.S InA
670601 113117-;15 I 0
50..•

•
<: ;NO
NMBPS UNI T A \ 15D C C98 98
200
200
SCALE IN FEET
J FUND
it Monitoring Well Location and
Repotted Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
. Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Doles)
rs• Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 70 ug/L
AS SHOWN
so
*WWI NIEMADONAL "pc
risac,a M:ps Goa 5-21
state Datnitsals• el lis
36.092gptcpai 01.7.1.273...0alblo1ootbinsma .7.61.1..., LI
450130 0601 I 8-CIS 0
sis• •••••

D,Ml5 W*SMICT
SOUTHWEST
0
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
—10 —
IMW-217I
uW-216
(Of Ise 20'
to NW)
(Offset 80'
to SW
IMW-22
MW-227
MW-226
(offset 40'
to SE)
JLIW-2091
(Offset 45 I C-8
to SE)
IMW-2081
MW-221
Mw-220
NORTHEAST
D'
3.0
(NO)
25.0
(ND)
35.0
8.5
IO.OaND
43-
21.0
(3.330)
0
LEGEND
11 Location Number •
f7Ti- Ground Surface
3.0 - lop of Screen Depth
6.86)
j20.5 (228)
25.5
-16A
47.7
6.4
r io.If I 11 1
.fi4)1111111
75.0r I
26.0
100
25.0
34.0
r
1 (ND)
0 100
110RIZDNTAL SCALE
10 0
VERTICAL SCALE
7.0 Bottom of Screen Depth
�— Water Level Elevation
,/Th. Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 70 ug/L
Dashed Line Indicates
that Plume is Offset
from Section Shown
t9b0) Reported concentration
in ug/L
ND) Not Detected
Higher permeobility deposits
including Sand, Fine Sand.
and Silty Sand
Lover permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand. Sandy
Silt. Sill. and Cloy
Shell Limestone Deposits
J10 AS 5 tioim— JIr 2 0fC90 rQs. 0-22
[ . o.mD,w 1. P.un
15n 29X 2-U.w.a.rnur. D
OM-D'
.WAM 1MWWgN.L eTc aewna, n
iithealimas
650rx Dear as-m D

NORTHWEST
E MIMW-223I
W-222
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5-
0 —
-15
-20
25
4.0
10.0
31.0
�QQ
(ND)
(ND)
C-
C-
3.0
7.0 -
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water level Elevation.
ND
r` Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 70 ug/L
(960) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Not Detected
(Offset 70'
to NE)
MW-2 8
MW-227
MW-226
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand, Fine Sand,
and Silty Sand'
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sandy VERTICAL SCALE
Silt, Silt, and Clay
lAS s .M 30c aa•-n. nvve 5-23
Shell Limestone deposits •
C Y �sn iorcc 1.2-u`w°"uws'ws-r
1 �6.b 1-�MO/wlrmNullgHu .eca�,�
a egata �. r awlxaol rant'
(Offset 50'
to NE)
MW-219
MW-212 MW-218
3.0
28.0
37.0
(ND)
100
SOUTHEAST
E'
p 100
• HORIZONTAL SCALE
10 0 10

•ND
1
le ND
/
/ //
I �_
. -.__J l_ ..:
I`1 AN I Hill IlING 15C:i
.600,.•\
MW-i29
96,500 -•
•
NO
•
ND
3.85
IAA'- 21
ND
r
MA
ND
IA' ' 1'
0.866
200
7
•' ND
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
} Monitoring Well Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
. Groundwater Screening locolion
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dotes)
it". Contour .Line Indicates
2L Standard of 7 ug/L
AS 10aECDe vlawrl rya+ a-2*
I na*awa uro.Alw-
nal 2aptc a •.l-a JJ_ .D.w • WAw
°Olairm Damn* Iwaw Sin. Inc
MOW* MHRNTIONN.1 BYG *DDNDp
6501300601 IIMu-afLI o

/
D \HDPS\ UNITA\1DDCC9999
C eND
- 1<
•/ 4i.ia ."
— ND
200
•
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
+. Monitoring Welll Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
• Groundwater Screening Locotion
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Doles)
/\ Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 7 ug/L
▪ AS &CNN
Isn
ieo[cse..... ry.n s-:•.
w..�a. truwa
yp▪ piLy a i.r-pnbwti. w ar
4ra... ma r �sr.
rum
esoiaonr I s-rrorl 0

4
SOUTHWEST
-D
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5
0 —
—5 —
— 10 —
— 15 —
— 20 —
— 25 —
W-217
25.0
35.0
(ND)
(Offset 80'
(Olisel 20' toy
to NW)
8.16)
2
0
3.0
20.5
(705)
25.5
1 1 1 I
I 1 1
J 1 I,I
(offset 40'
to SE)
1Mw-2091
(Offset 45 to SE C-8
I
111111
1011111 I I
75.0' ' '
1
50
.4
8.0
1
0
MW-221
25.0
3f
100
HORIZONTAL SCALE '
10 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE
NORTHEAST
D'
(ND)
LEGFND
—1 I Location Number
3.0
7.0
(960)
(ND)
f1
Ground. Surface
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
Contour Line Indicates
2L Standard of 7 ug/L"
Reported concentration
in ug/L
Not Detected .
Higher permeability deposits
including Sond, Fine Sond,
and Silty Sond
Lower permeaDilAy deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sondy
S01, Silt, and Clay
•
Shell Limestone Deposits
• r :.eoccad"' o .,„r', e''or.`re.�
lln lefl[f1M d 1,1-Orl Chsvit. D-D'
RWIMNlINFSMANOIOL
ate— -iG Oy6lali0 e]Orb Ot01 Ocr-0a e
)

NORTHWEST
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5 —
0-
- 10 —
- 15 —
-20 —
- 25
MW-223
MVO -222
4.0
10.0
1(NO)
31.0
(NO)
-5
3.0
7.0
Location Number
Ground Surface Elevation
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
IEGEND
Contour Line Indicates
2L Standord of 7 ug/L
(960) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Not Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sond. Ana Sand.
and Silty Sond
Lower permeability deposits
Silt. Silt and Cloy
including Clayey Said, Sandy
Shell Lineslone Deposits
(Offset 70'
to NE)
MW-228
1AV-227
LIW-226,
(011sel 50'
to NE)
MW-213
MW-212
MW-219
MW-218
3.0
28.0
37.0-
(0.1266)
tlb
SD?
100
SOUTHEAST
0 100
HORIZONTAL SEALE
10 8 10
M SHOWN VERTICAL SCALE
. 'IL roo co ((cc 9a9 a —.4 p 7.1. .. c . .. iiman 0 u J. so. it. i . .0 5- b a i a27 it co
r t19.4ADIM7...114finezioNAL. . . Jo awn, mociroorriti..
ism ,,,,
1. 6.501340•01 ax-ot 8

/
0
BPS\UNITA
/
/
- • • ..- • •
• . • • • .
i•.
•ND
/
'tin C7
•ND 1. -
ND
f AN I
c2:620
OM [MG
MW-22S
ND
Mei
ND
. _ .
66.!
N;)'
irw
L7.02
1,1NND .- rf
ND • M4 I I Y 4 ND
I u
94
4 .2
m4 '
No •
NO
NO
ao
o-
200
SCALE IN FEET
ULM?
Monitoring Well Locationone
Reported Concentrobi on n
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
Groundwater Screening Location
and Repotted Concentration 10
ug/L (Various Dotes) ,
C tour tine Indicates Estulated
Contour
Limit of 5 ug/
--•
IIRADON IIMONATI:o44/
warrassean
al
non
2 ea Dylet,41..
....71KC94m:LL 2frrcaikb:"..-2,„ch • enxIo"....:.51.1-
m 00.1199
m13110501
au I inu_fica

/
n
2
a
a
< •ND
/
•
/ 441,5,
i ND
J.-
I'1 ANI I4111I I itl'
•
NO
ND
• MA -
ND
Al* ••21,;
I NO •21
inv -11G 4.1119
.1
nv - .11
0.698
• •
i
oh
200 0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
4 Monitoring Well Locution and
•Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
• Groundwater Screening Locution
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Doles)
, % Contour Line indicates Estimated
Duanlilotion Limit of 5 ug/L
AS
NRADIANIMIENIMIONAL
BPG
200(C9s �••�
Nwe +,i1• &NM,lm N
b
200(C90-00..
e]WO O0001 I 0-120CA I 0

SOUTHWEST
D
MW-217
MW-216
30 —
25 —
20 —
15 —
10 —
5 — 25.0
0 — (ND)
—10 —
— 15 —
— 20 -
- 25 —
qY
a
35.0
(Offset 60'
(Offset 20' to S
to NW)
i11W-215I
NW-214
21.0
3.0
P4
(Offset 40'
to SE)
JMW-209(
(Offset 4 I C-B
to SE)
how —20?
0
100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
• 10 is
VERTICAL SCALE
'NORTHEAST
MW-221
MW-220
25.0
tiaff•
(ND)
LEGEND
1 I Location Number
Ground Surface
3.0 Top of Screen Depth
7!0 Bottom o1 Screen Depth
Z Water Level Elevation
�� Contour Line Indicates
Estimated Ouantitotion
Limit of 5 ug/L
(960) Reported concentration
in ug/L
(ND) Not 'Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand, Fina Sand,
and Silly Sand
Lover permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sandy
Silt, Silt, and Clay
1
Shell Limestone Deposits
*5 snoex sass icrccse — rw+• 0-]0
r��..r•. 15n zioccO tl 1.2-aitHcreMNw,. Dietr"tD-D'
. epa erns esorseaal Inca
0

L
G
a
-20 —
-25 —
3.0
7.0
(ND)
(ND)
Location Number
Ground Surface Devotion
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
Water Level Elevation
10.0
15.0
(960)
(ND)
Contour Line Indicates
Estimated Ouantitotion
Limit of 5 ug/L
Reported concentration
in ug/L
Not Detected
Higher permeability deposits
including Sand, Fine Sand,
and Silly Sand
Lower permeability deposits
including Clayey Sand, Sandy
Silt, Set. and Cloy
Shell Limestone Deposits
(ousel 50'
to NE
(0.698)
UW-219
NW-218
37.0
(0.966)
(ND)
100
SOUTHEAST
E'
0
100
HORIZONTAL SCALE
l0 0 10
VERTICAL SCALE
IOpecpf`— rqu. 5-31
1 (i1 1 eA,.,.. "Ashyore l.x-ornwe . [-r
Sbp .b T I 'a°"""'r�� y"'"'"°
450130 We npM'Q 0
Jet
$pr,..nol. Ontriberbon
.-i L - AS Sax

1
j
/
trl
\ •ND
i /
-2/ {♦
it.IW - 221
' NO
G3
'ND
PLAN I BUILDING 273-
MW-228
314 -\
i Id' _.0 17'
ND --
i MW-230
=t
.2
j MW-217
ND C14 •_19 Si_31
i
kW }�L 7<,.
NIW- 315
ND
200
200
SCALE IN FEET
JFCFNQ
+ Monitoring Well Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1998)
• Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dates)
/\ Contour Line Indicates Estimated
QuantitoUon Limit of 5 ug/L
AS SHOWN
IIIRADMLSIN1FwWgIWL
aniNfir
at
191
lR
reoccsa
1VrR1`
rya sw
oube+lm
{vl• nods Sr.K
16e13110001 iIM4'K I a

A
L
a
n
a
z
z
i
a
n
z
(
L
/ "
eND
,7
GS
ND
ND
5e
ND
PLANE BUILDING
'ND
1.tie MW- let I
N
MW-212
+ND
CD
e NMDIW- 209
T1.69
5.7
it)
ND
+Mw .!I2
4.48
,r
MW
NSW 218 No
lw CIi
+ND
200
200
SCALE IN FEET
} Monitoring Well Location and
Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Nov. 1996)
Groundwater Screening Location
and Reported Concentration in
ug/L (Various Dates)
r\ Contour Line Indicates Estimated
Duanlitalion Limit of 5 ug/L
AS �s ,4 :ei xerccsa ilea saW., ,,,
Mt 10�COq J Or�W b ai s
1R110W1RRFJals110NM �.eS Lve•wo Ma MI
k
iliMilallailililer... innnwrw1
�a aw,xoso, I n-SC 1 o

ATTACHMENT 0

JUL 15 1999 08:33 FR 01`M
TOi 94611415
P.11/12
Peerless Metal Powders & Abrasives
124 South Military
Dcfmit. Michigan 48209
313-841-5400
MATERIAL SAFETY
DATA SHEET
SECTION I IDENTIFICATION
Product Name ; j :AST IRON ACMREGATE
Common Name
CAS No : 65997-191
Chemical Family' Metals
Formula : NLA
Date : hum 13,1998
SECTION II -INGREDIENTS AND RECOMMENDED OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LIMITS
Material CAS No. Weight % ACGIH TLV Mg/cu m
Iron
Carbon
Manganese
Silicon
Chromium
1309-37-1
7440-44-0
13094114
7440-21-3
7440-47-3
90+
1.50 - 3.50
0.60
2.00
0,20
5
3.5
10
5
0.5
c means ceiling limit. 'These arc limits which shall
be exceeded.
SECTION III PHYSICAL DATA
Melting Point Specific Density Appearance and Odor
base metal - 2750 degrees F 6.7 gm / cc
grey particles - no odor
HSECTIONIV FIRE AND EXPLOSION-HAZARD-DA-TA
Airborne finely dispersed dust will ignite. -.
Extinguishing Media
Dry chemical, dry sand, graphite to smother
fire
Special Fue Fighting Procedures : Use water only in mist / fog Dry
application to avoid spreading
powder or accumulated dust.
Use self-contained breathing
apparatus and protective
clothing.
SECTION V REACTIVITY DATA
Stable under normal conditions of storage and transport. Will react with strong oxidizers.
SECTION VI HEALTH HAZARD DATA
No potential health hazards other than
those listed are known
Major Exposure Hazard
X Inhalation
Skin Contact
X Eye Contact
Indigestion
Effects of Overexposure
Inhalation - bronchitis, sidemsis
Eye Contact - mechanical irritation
Emergency and First Aid Procedures _
inhalation - remove to fresh air
Eye Contact - irrigate eyes to remove dust particles

JUL 15 1999 08:33 FR 01
TO( ,94611415
P.12/12
SECTION VIL SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES
avoid generation of airborne dust during clean-up process
Dispose of in accordance with local, state and federal' regulations •
SECTION VM SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION
As needed, use approved dust respirator and eye protection ( OSHA 29 CFR t910.94). Do not use contact lenses. Veatiladon
recommended.
1/4
SECTION IX SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
Keep in closed containers. Do not store near strong oxidizers. Use good housekeeping procedures to avoid creating dust.
The information contained herein bas been compiled from sources considered reliable and accurate to the best of our
lmowledge. and belle$ but is not guaranteed to be so. It relates only to the product listed and does not relate to use of the product
in combination with any other material or materials or in a particular processes. Since the use of the MSDS information, the
conditions of use of ow product and the environment in which that product is placed are not within the control of Peerless Metal ,
Powders & Abrasive, it is the users obligation and duty to determine the conditions of safe use of the products used as well as the
manner in which these products may be affected by the environment in which they may be used.
We urge you to review each MSDS to ensure that year uses of the product take into account the current information available on its
potential hazards. It is your responsibility to convey this information to your employees, customers or anyone who may be exposed
to this product Please check your files and discard any previous versions as may be applicable. If you have any questions or require
additional copies. pleasccontact our Sales Department.

, •
' 1
1 :
Vapor Pressure: Solid, n/a
Vapor Density: Solid. Na
-4 Evaporation RateSolic1,-n/a
Solubility In Water: Complete
Appearance and Odor: Creamy white povaller withbean-like odor
Specific Gravity: Density -40 to 45 lidcf
Melting Point Deo3rnposes
•
" G150 MATERIAL SAFEIY DATA.HE
" • .
. bane-al:Y.: • ••• • •
MANUFACTURER'S NAME: •
RANTEC CORPORATION ,
PO SOX 729 •
•
RANCHESTER, VYY 82139 • • •
EMERGENCY PHONE: [phone]
Product name: Rantec G150 Blopolymei
Chemical name: Guar gum, Galadomannan
Chemical family: Carbohydrate/Polysaccharide •
Formula: Approximately (C61-1,00)n
DOT hazard class: None DOT proper shipping nante: Naitaeourated
••••••;;; .t* •••-)
• DA1EPREPARED:13 Derieihber;19,97:•i•
.• • • PREPARED By: • •
• Lloyd Marsden, Plant Managei:le44.4r:.:
• • . r•-sc.CfaT4.,,
.• • •• ...•••••••:;e1.4•:••• •••
•
.• • • •
•••1,14.•icit. •
.. •
SECTION Hazardous Ingredients
Rantec G150 Blopotymer contains no hazardous ingredients.
SECTION III - PnySICal Data
Boiling Point: Solid, n/a
Flash Point
Flammable or Explosion Limits:
Extinguishing Media:
Special Fire Fighting Procedures:
Unusual Fire and Explosion
Hazards:
N/A
UEL Not Determined LEL Approx. 0.04 oz/ci. Similar to Flour and
grain Dusts.
CO2, dry chemical, foam, water fog.
Wearself-contained breathing apparatus to avoid smoke.
Powder has the potential to form explosive mixture with air.
Avoid creating dust. Keep away from heat, open flame and
sparks. Use spark -proof motors, ventilate to control dust and
use other preventive measures as with all dusty materials.
Powder becomes very slippery when wet. Application of
waterto material may produce slipping hazards.

JUL 15 1999 013: 31 FR 01E'^,c_
. . .
e,77'PAM 11% oc,
'
TO 714611415
1: ?;;;•sr
t. •ov
•
:• y : : •
SECTION'rgiiiiviti Data; " : • ••;1:•:•• ; s ••• • :,
Stability' • • s : •:•:•', • • i• •ThSlable:(2.44::.)ici;',-Ait.•.
Conditions to Avoid: rs. :•••- 1.• Ignition sourest, air suspended diretvraier contacC
P.08/12
Incompatibi lity:
Hazardous Oitcompositieri Products: •
Hazardous Polynierization:
SEC-tic/00710th rate@ Petit
OSHA Pemdssible Exposure tlmth
ACGIH
Signs and Symptoms of
Overexpestae:
Medical Conditions Generally
Aggravated by Exposure:
Caminogenicity:
Primary Route(s) of Exposure_
and Emergency/first Aid Procedures:
..:• • ' None'j..s • 7::::'1:;;;;;)••• ; ••••• " : ;•:••• •L
WO reit•••• • • "i •
. .• :*.•• • ..• •; ; • .• •
41.14:1(041
•
NoneostaUished
. •
Acute: None established
airenia None established • ' • •
None established. However, like any drat. G150
may produce respiratory irritation andlor allergic - • •
Not established as a dirdnogert'
. .
Eyes: May be irritating. 'RemoveeXcesi material from • ." •
• .
around eyes: Irrigate eyes with water. Consult physiciatt if
irritation persists, Inhalation: May produce respiratory irrit- •
atIon and/or allergic response in some individuals. Move to
fresh at Gonad physlSn if irritation or allergic reaction.
occurs. Skin: May causedrynes$. Wash skin with soap
and water. Use a suitable skin lotion.
. •
• f!N:Cli.:FAVil • 4 CJ:.'
Yir
SECTION VII - Special Precatitionsand Spill Prcicedurei
Handling and Storage: Store in a dry, cool place G150 is stable in the dry form.
Parted iron moisture, excessive heat and damage by rodents.
Keep containers dosed to avoid moisture pickup. Propedy cover
Material Spills:
WasteDisposal:
and retest after maendedstorage to assure -quality -retort° use.
Please note.that 0150 becomes very slippery whenwet Sweep
up dry and Containerize. Rouse W suitable or dispose. Mop area with
hot water to remove final traces. Test area and repeat if necessary.
G150 is not hazardous waste. Dispose in an approved landfill in
accordance with local regulations. Do not dump downtewers or
drains as this may cause blockage.
SECTION:VII- Special Firoteotittiti Ilifortnationfor
Respiratory Protection: ProvIdelnaviduals with approved dust masks or respirators that are
_,. capable of removing aerosol dust
Ventilation: Provide du St control measures to remove or recover airborne dust •
Use spark -proof equipment
Protective Gloves: Rubber, plastic, leather. ..
Eye Protection: Safety glasses.
Notice.••';' -:•••••••••;:. • • : :N;;;•::.Inforrnehon contained in this literature. is given in.good faithiand ••"-•
• •••••••V' Vairrahk.exprester. Implied;rernadercontadmanufacthrerllstedr :
for more information.

P.09/12
PRODUCT NASIVMEt.L
CHEMICAL NAME: Proprietary '.:.; '`° . ;;
CHEMICAL FAMILY: Propylene Glycol Solution%Enzyme.Protein
FORMULA: Proprietary: ::; .;•::;:,.04.,t .•
DOT HAZARD CLASS: None ' DOT PROPER SHIPPING NAME; Non -Regulated
SECTION 1
MANUFACTURER'S NAME:.
RANTEC CORPORATION
PO BOX 729
RANCHESTER, WY 82839
EMERGENCY PHONE: [phone]
SECTION I1 Hazardous Ingredients, Information
LEB contains no hazardous ingredients.
DATE PREPARED: 28 May 1993
PREPARED BY:.
Lloyd Marsden, Plant Manager
SECTION I11 Physical Characteristics
BOILING POINT: 220° F ' SPECIFIC GRAVITY:(H30-11:1.02
VAPOR PRESSURE: Unknown VAPOR DENSITY: Unknown
EVAPORATION RATE: Unknown MELTING POINT: Less than 32° F
SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Complete.
APPEARANCE AND ODOR: Dark brown liquid with glircol and fermentation odor.
SECTION IV Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
Non -Flammable
SECTION V Reactivity. Data
STABILITY: Stable CONDITIONS TO AVOID: High temperatures
INCOMPATIBILITY: Strong adds, bases, oxidaing agents.
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITON PRODUCTS: None
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will Not Occur,

JUL 15 1999 08:32 FR 01''
TOrm',94611415 P.10/12 w
amtreepntinwe
••Yi+!Jwi:'ay.4ANA'4-4�a.a,(•.�y�.'..y
!voks
• 1/,.1f ••
.. :. �i+�i•1�nS '�:.i • .. ..:i;i.•j•,•�
':. SECTIOIH`1/jti 1:"Hea•yth'h zaTdrData '''. `..•.
ROUTES OF ENTRY: $kin; ingestion • }.:. • '..
: j�.i.:*d 4. %'4: .Ta 'btu ,•::�'=5�':.-,t�.•' ::'•'% :'L•' '•'�'.�'•� ��L�+'I'l: `G �:
'::HEEyes May cabs !.. : ;.;._; •' , :>: indlyidual sensitivity./ Remove.' material: eves' .
.2A3fil Eyes upon �rect�goatabt •
depedirig.on.. .. r :•,.... .
'•May cause eye.. • �.:::�-;;,....'::;..;.
y flushing fresh water. Cc if irritation "'i::
Consult physician t7etsists::;' .' ; S
b flush .with •�i:._,,:a;..
2. `Skm•' Essentially: en -toxic: May produce a
• n .•
'drying effect; • � '_ , repeated
.can cause irritati:'on on;pralonged•. or'
• exposure:.Waeh skin with; soap and water:. Use a sortable skin khtion.
3. Ingestion: Ingestion of this material may produce toxic effects. If ingested, consult a physician.
CHRONIC OVEREXPOSURE: None known to occur..,, Individuals with a history of respiratory allergic responses may
have respiratory conditions such as asthma intensified by exposure to dust from this product if allowed to dry. _ • . .
CARCINOGENICITY: None of the ingredients are known to be carcinogenic..
•
• •
SECTION VII Precautions for Safe Handling. And lase•
STEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF SPILL: Stop flow of material, surround spill to prevent spread. Do not allow
material to dry on floor or other surfaces as dust may be irritating.
SPILL HANDLING: Use pumps and containers as necessary to recover material. Salvage uncontaminated material,
flush balance to drain. Completely flush spill area to avoid drying and dustiness.
SECTION VIII Control Measures
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: Not required.
VENTILATION: N/A.
PROTECTIVE GLOVES: Rubber, plastic, leather.
EYE PROTECTION: Safety glasses.
WORK/HYGIENICPRACTICES: Avoid contact and central spills. Remove material that may come in personal contact.
Keep work area clear of spilled material and avoid contact. Personnel should be tested for protein enzyme sensitivity
prior to work assignment in handling material.

JUL 15 1999 09 : 45 FR I,-•,
T1' •-1194611415 P.02/06
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
Last Revised: January 27, 1998
Supplier:
Section 1 - Material Identification
Applied Power Concepts, Inc.
1738 N. Neville Street
Orange, CA 92865 '
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Chemical Name: Propanoic acid, 2-[242-(2-hydroxy-l-oxopropoxy)-1-oxopropoxy]
-1-oxopropoxy]-1,2,3-propanetriyl ester
Chemical Family: Organic Chemical
Trade Name: Glycerol tripolylactate
Section 2-.=-Harardous Ingredients
CAS #: 201167-72-8
One should anticipate the potential for eye irritation and skin irritation with large scale exposure
or in sensitive individuals.
*****************************************************************
Section 3 - Physical Data
Melting Point: . NA
Boiling Point: ND
Flash Point: ND
Density: 1.347
Solubility: Acetone and DMSO
Appearance: Pale white liquid
Odor: Not detectable
Vapor Pressure: None
MSDSGLYCEROL TRIPOLYLACTATE.DOC

JUL 15 1999 09:46 FR 1M T -'494611415 P.03/06
Section 4 - Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
Extinguishing Media: Carbon Dioxide, Dry Chemical Powder or Appropriate Foam.
Water may be used to keep exposed containers cool.
For large quantities involved in a fire, one should wear full protective clothing and a NIOSH
approved self contained breathing apparatus with full face piece operated in the pressure demand
or positive pressure mode as for a situation where lack of oxygen and excess heat are present.
Section 5 - Toxicological Information
*****************************************************************
Acute Effects: May be harmful by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption.
May cause irritation. To the best of our knowledge. the chemical. physical. and toxicological
properties of the glycerol tripolylactate have not been investigated. Listed below are the
toxicological information for glycerol and lactic acid.
RTECS#: MA8050000
Glycerol
Irritation data SKN-RBT-500 MG/24H MLD
EYE-RBT 126 MG MLD
EYE-RBT 500 MG/24H MLD
Toxicity data: ORL-MUS LD50:4090 MG/KG
SCU-RBT LD50:100 MG/KG
ORL-RAT LD50:12600 MG/KG
IHL-RAT LC50: >570 MG/M3/1H
IPR-RAT LD50: 4420 MG/KG
IVN-RAT LD50:5566 MG/KG
IPR-MUS LD50: 8700 MG/KG
SCU-MUS LD50:91 MG/1CG
IVN-MUS LD50: 4250 MG/KG
ORL-RBT LD50: 27 GM/KG
SKN-RBT LD50:> 10GM/KG
IVN-RBT LD50: 53 GM/KG
ORL-GPG LD50: 7750 MG/KG
85JCAE-7207,1-986
BIOFX* 9-4/1970
85JCAE-,207.1986
FRZKAP (6),56,1977
NIIRDN 6,215,1982
FEPRA7 4,142,1945
BIOFX* 9-4/1970
RCOCBB 56,125,1987
ARZNAD 26,1581,1976
ARZNAD 26,1579,1978
NIIRDN 6,215,1982
JAPMAB 39,583,1950
DMDJAP 31,276.1959
BIOFX* 9-4/1970
NIIRDN 6,215,1982
JIHTAB 23,259,1941
Target Organ data: Behavioral (headache), gastrointestinal (nausea or vomiting), Paternal effects
(spermatogenesis, testes, epididynils, sperm duct), effects of fertility (male fertility index, post -
implantation mortality).
MSDSGLYCEROLTRIPOLYLACTATE.DOC 2

JUL 15 1999 09:46 FR (' TV '194611415 F.04/06
•
RTECS#: OD2800000
Lactic acid
Irritation data: SKN-RBT 5MG24H SEV 85JCAE -,656,86
EYE-RBT 750 UG SEV AJOPAA 29,1363,46
Toxicity data: ORL-RAT LDS0:3543 MG/KG FMCHA2-,C252,9 1
SKN-RBT LD50:>2 GM/KG FMCHA2-,C252,91
ORL-MUS LD50: 4875 MO/KG FAONAU 40,144,67
ORL-GPG LD50: 1810 MG/KG, JIHTAB 23,259,41
ORL-QAL LD50: >2250 MG/KG FMCHA2-,C252,91
Only selected registry of toxic effects of chemical substances (RTECS) data is presented here.
See actual entry in RTECS for complete information on lactic acid and glycerol.
Section 6 - Health Hazard Data
Handling: Avoid continued contact with skin.
Avoid contact with eyes.
In any-case-of-any-exposure-which-elicits-a-response,ra-physician-should-be-consulted
immediately.
First Aid Procedures:
Inhalation: Remove to fresh air. If not breathing give artificial respiration. In case of labored
breathing give oxygen. Call a physician.
Ingestion: No effects expected. Do not give•anything to an unconscious person. Call a
physician immediately.
Skin Contact: Flush with plenty of water. Contaminated clothing may be washed or dry cleaned
normally.
Eye contact: Wash eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes lifting both upper and
lower lids. ,Call a physician.
MSDSGLYCEROL TRIPOLYLACTATE.DOC 3

JUL 15 1999 09:46 FR
T^ a1194611415 P.05/06
Section 7 - Reactivity Data
Conditions to Avoid: -Strong oxidizing agents, bases and acids
Hazardous Polymerization: None known
Further Information: Hydrolyses in water to form Lactic Acid and Glycerol.
******s4***is*********i*********ittis**#sus**********************
Section 8 - Spill, Leak or Accident Procedures
*****************************************************************
After Spillage or Leakage: Neutralization is not required. This combustible material may be
burned in a chemical incinerator equipped with an afterburner and scrubber.
Disposal: Laws and regulations for disposal vary widely by locality. Observe all applicable
regulations and laws. This material, may be disposed of in solid waste. Material is readily
degradable and hydrolyses in several hours.
No requirement for a reportable quantity (CERCLA) of a spill is known.
*****************************************************************
Section 9 - Special Protection or Handling
Should be stored in plastic lined steel, plastic, glass, aluminum, stainless steel, or reinforced
fiberglass containers.
Protective Gloves: Vinyl or Rubber
Eyes: Splash Goggles or Full Face Shield
Area should have approved means of washing
eyes. -
Ventilation: General exhaust.
Storage: Store in cool, dry, ventilated area.
Protect from imcompatible materials.
***************************************sass*ss***s***************
Section 10 - Other Information
This material will degrade in the environment by hydrolysis to lactic acid and glycerol.
Materials containing reactive chemicals should be used only by personnel with appropriate
chemical training.
The information contained in this document is the best available to the supplier as of the time of'
MSDSGLYCEROL TRIPOLYLACTATE.DOC
4

JUL 15 1999 09:46 FR Q:'
1
TG H194611415 . P.06,06
writing. Some possible hazards have been determined by analogy to similar classes of material.
No separate tests have been performed on the toxicity of this material. The items in this
document are subject to change and clarification as more information becomes available.
MSDSGLYCEROL TRIPOLYLACTATE.DOC
5